





^ < 



++ 





0° tyJtii* °o 








^ 



b1 









■> 



isf/v, % 



♦ 






rf" 



o V 






■;-;-. 







^0 



■fw&2#>' 



vtk •» 



^ 



v* 




*b1 



A^ <* 






* • » o ^.0 





<f\. • ' 1 * ^ 















. V 



«v 






o- 



Hi ' 



iT 



*/ .'& 




• ^0 



» . -.»» 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY: 



PKI.IVKKF.D IN THK 



NORTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 



CHICAGO. 






BY 1ST. L. RICE, D.D. 



CHICAGO: 

DAILY DEMOCRAT PRINT, 4 5 LA SALLE ST. 

1860. 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY: 



DELIVERED IX THE 



NORTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 



CHICAGO, 



Y Ni Ju. EIOE, D.D. 



CHICAGO. 
'DAILY DEMOCRAT PRINT, 45 LA SALLE ST 

I860. 



2,5 m 



LECTURE I. 



IS SLAVEHOLDIXG SIN PER SE? 



There are several reasons which have constrained me to depart 
from my usual course of pulpit instruction, and to enter upon a 
careful discussion of the subject of : 

1. It has important bearings upon the question of the inspiration 
of t; ires. It is well known, that extreme views of both 
sides of this question have exhibited strong tendencies to infideli- 
ty. Extreme pro-slavery men : ted to deny the Scripture 
doctrine of the unity of the human race; whilst not a few ex- 
treme anti-slavery men have fallen into fanatical infidelity. The 
correct statement and defence of the real teachings of the Scrip- 
tures on this subject, and of the legitimate tendencies of those 
teachings, will confirm their inspiration. 

2. This subject has important bearings upon the unity,the peace, 
the honor and the efficiency of the Church of Christ. We are all 
familiar with the painful agitation-; and divisions which, during 
the last twenty years, have resulted from the different opinions 
entertained by ministers and laymen. The injury to the cause 
<>f religion and of sound morals, resulting from these agitations, 
is incalculable ; and the end is not yet. There may be little 
reason to hope, in the present state of feeling, to accomplish 
much for the peace and unity of the Church by discussion : yet 
firmly believing, that the great body of good men would stand 
nearly together, if they understood each other, I feel constrained 
to make the effort to promote so desirable an end. 

3. Tl t has important bearings upon the Church of which 
I am an humble minister. It is almost the only Church, strong 
in the Xorth and in the South, that, thus far, has withstood the 
divisive infiuences, and still resists the tendencies to both ex- 



4 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

trcmes. Standing thus between two extreme parties, she ha« 
had the fortune to be charged with holding precisely opposite 
doctrines. The extreme men of the South have labored to prove 
that she holds to Abolitionist views ; whilst those at the North 
are no less confident, that she is pro-slavery. These opposite 
charges, made by intelligent and even religious men, in view oi 
the same documents, do indeed give a sad exhibition of the 
weakness of the human intellect, when under the influence of 
strong prejudices. But since it is impossible, that both these 
opposite and contradictory charges can be true; and since the 
parties making them are equally prejudiced ; the strong proba- 
bility, even before examination, is— that neither is true 1 need 
scarcely say, that in this latitude constant efforts have been and 
still are made, to heap reproach upon the Presbyterian Church 
because of her supposed connection with slavery. No one can' 
be ignorant of this fact, who has read either 'the religious or 
political papers. The time has fully come, then, for us clearly 
to define our own position. Presbyterians have never been 
accustomed either to conceal their faith, or to shrink from the 
defence of it. It has not been characteristic of them to yield to 
the winds of doctrine blowing around them, or to turn their backs 
when assailed. It is especially proper for me to do this, inas- 
much as the last paper adopted by the General Assembly on the 
subject ot slavery, and which has been endorsed by two succeed- 
ing Assemblies, was drafted by myself; and inasmuch as the last 
Assembly, with extraordinary unanimity, honored me with a 
Professorship in the important Theological Seminary founded in 
this city. On these accounts it is, doubtless, that the enemies of 
the Church have, of late, directed their attacks specially against 
me-hoping thereby to damage the Church. It becomes espe- 
cially my duty, therefore, to defend her against these assaults. 
4. It has important bearings on our country. The agitations of 
which I have spoken, have not been confined to the° churches 
For years past, they have produced increasing alienation between 
the two great sections of the country. This alienation has been 
fearfully increased, of late, by the dreadful occurrences with which 
wc are painfully familiar. The political parties, too, now stand 
so arrayed against each other, as greatly to intensify this state 
of feehng. Heretofore, Americans have been accustomed to 
rejoice in the certain progress and growing greatness of this highly 
favored nation; and have cherished the belief, that it was des- 



__ 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 5 

lined, in the purposes of God, to have a mighty instrumentality 
in giving pure religion and religious liberty to the world. But 
now wise men and true patriots look with dread and alarm to 
the future, and their hearts are filled with forebodings of coming 
ruin. Surely the day has come, for those who can look calmly 
at the subject, to make some effort to save the heritage of our 
fathers, and to avert the horrible disasters that seem just before us. 

The connection of the question of slavery with the politics of 
the country, renders the discussion of it more difficult, and yet 
the more necessary. Let us try to lose sight of political parties, 
whilst we calmly seek for light from the word of God. 

As to myself \ I have not the slightest interest in slavery. I 
never owned a slave, and do not expect to. I have resided and 
labored in both the slave-holding and the free States. I have seen 
slavery as it is, and have been intimately acquainted with many 
slave-holders. I have made the subject one of careful study 
more than thirty years, and have watched the workings of the 
different modes of dealing with it. It may be supposed, there- 
fore, that my opinions are definitely formed. If I know myself 
at all, my earnest desire is to see every human being as free as I 
am; and to effect such an object, I would exert myself as 
earnestly, <>n any feasible plan, as any living man. 

The discussion of slavery presents amoral phenomenon which, 
I believe, has not a parallel in the history of moral and religious 
investigations. The Church of God has had to deal with it 
nearly four thousand years, and through the whole of that period 
wise and good men have been, with comparatively few exceptions, 
very nearly agreed. And yet, during the last thirty or forty 
year>, the constant, earnest discussion of it has resulted in no 
approximation to agreement, but in greater divergence. This is 
true, not only as between men in the free and slave-holding 
States, but as between men in the free States, and even in other 
countries. The divisions in churches, where formerly peace and 
unity existed, are the sad proof. 

This state of things is the more remarkable, when we remem- 
ber, that the differences are not slight, but as between the darkness 
of midnight and the clear light of noonday. For example, Rev. 
James Duncan, in a book republished in 1840, by the Cincinnati 
Anti-Slavery Society, uses such language as this : " The crime of 
slave-holding may, by a very short process of reasoning, be 
shown to be much more aggravated than a common act of 



G LECTURES O^t SLAVERY. 

murder" — "a degree of theft as much more aggravated than 
horse-stealing, as a man is better than a horse." And a Congre- 
gational Association in the Northwest recently resolved, that 
"the practice of slaveliolding is justly regarded as 'the sum of 
all villainies,"' and therefore, they refuse to hold Christian 
fellowship with slaveholders. 

On the other hand, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church has decided that slave-holding is not, in itself, a bar to 
Christian fellowship ; and this ground has been occupied by such 
men as Rev. Dr. A. Alexander, and Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, 
Rev. Dr. Tyler, of East Windsor Theological Seminary, Drs. 
Cunningham and Chalmers, of Scotland, and a multitude of 
others, whose eminent learning and piety cannot be questioned. 
Dr. Chalmers pronounced the leading principle of Abolitionism, 
" a factitious and new principle, which not only wants, but which 
contravenes the authority of Scripture and Apostolic example, 
and, indeed, has only been heard of in Christendom within these 
few years, as if gotten up for an occasion, instead of being drawn 
from the repositories of that truth which is immutable and 
eternal." And the paper adopted by the General Assembly, 
already mentioned, which was denounced as making our Church, 
par excellence, the slave Church of America, called forth the 
unqualified admiration of Dr. Chalmers, who yet thought himself 
an enemy of slavery. 

How shall we account for these radical differences on a great 
moral question, between men who profess to derive their principles 
from the same unerring rule ? They may be accounted for, in 
part, from the tact, that too many Christian men derive their 
views of human rights from other sources, and then seek to justify 
them by appeals to the Scriptures. They are caused partly by 
widely different notions of men respecting what slavery is. They 
discuss the merits of different things under a common name, and 
thus reach opposite conclusions. And then the subject, as all 
who have attempted to investigate it know, is one of the most 
complicated in the whole range of moral questions. However 
the differences may be accounted for, the fact that men of learning 
and piety differ so widely, constitutes a very cogent reason, why 
no one should form an opinion without thorough examination. 
Declamation and denunciation on such a subject, are madness. 
If ever there was a subject which demanded careful, thorough, 
impartial examination, this does. 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

Some Jive different opinions ai'e entertained respecting slavery. 
1. That slaveholding is, like blasphemy, singer se — always and 
in all circumstances sinful. 2. That although there may lie cases 
in which the legal relation is justifiable, yet since slaveholders 
are generally tyrants and sinners, the fact that a man is a 
slaveholder, is prima facie evidence of sin ; and it is for him to 
prove his innocence. This opinion reverses the legal principle, 
that a man is presumed to be innocent, till proved guilty. 3. That 
slavery is a great evil, originating in sin, but that circumstances 
may exist which justify slaveholding, for the time being. 4. That 
it is a purely civil matter, with which the Church has nothini; 
to do, but to teach and enjoin the relative duties of master and 
slave. 5. That slavery is a Divine institution, or, at least, is 
sanctioned by the Bible. 

Before we can hope to get a clear view of the moral character 
of slavery and slaveholding, we must obtain a distinct idea of 
what it is. On this subject more than on almost any other, men 
constantly confound the thing with the laws by which it is regu- 
lated. Let us try to get a satisfactory view of what slavery is 
in itself. 

Some insist upon Aristotle's definition — "A slave is a tool with 
a soul in it." " Slavery," says a late writer of some notoriety, 
" is a system which divests human brings of the character and 
rights of persons, and reduces them to the character of things 
having no rights." If this is slavery, then I admit that slave- 
holding is always and everywhere a great sin, which ought to 
exclude from the Church of God. It requires no proof that that 
which robs a man of all rights, and makes him a thing, is sinful. 

Professor Haven defines, or rather describes it thus : " When 
the right of personal ownership and personal control, that properly 
belong to a man, are taken from him, for no fault and by no 
consent of his own, and vested in another, giving to the latter 
control over the person and industry of the former, the man thus 
subjected becomes a slave, and the one to whom he is subjected 
is termed a master. * * * The ownership is complete, and, 
to a great extent, irresponsible. The slave is in the same category 
with any other property or possession — as truly the property of 
the master as the horses or dogs that belong to the same 
plantation. The control of the master over the one is as complete, 
unlimited, and irresponsible, as his control over the other. His 
time, his labor, his acquisitions, his person, his children, are not 



8 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

his own, "but his master's. He is to be bought, and sold, and 
worked, and whipped, at the master's pleasure. He has no rights 
of his oicn." 

If this is a correct definition of slavery, I agree with Prof. 
Haven, that " it can hardly admit of serious question that slavery, 
as thus defined, involves a moral wrong" — that it is " contrary 
to the fundamental principles of morality." But his own state- 
ments, which are absolutely contradictory, are the best proof 
that it is not correct. In telling what a slave is, he informs us, 
that the control of the master over him is as complete, unlimited 
and irresponsible, as his control over his horses or dogs. And 
yet he admits, that limitations of his power may and do exist. 
And he also admits, " that slavery is recognized in the Scriptures 
both of the O. & N. Testament ;" that " under the Jewish 
economy, slavery, in a modified form, existed, and was suffered 
to exist;" that " the power of the Jewish master over .his servant 
was closely and strictly limited ;" that " the servant was not, in 
the modern sense, a slave — a mere piece of property, a thing. 
He was still a man. He had rights, and they were carefully 
guarded and secured by law. The master was not, either in 
theory, or practically, irresponsible. In purchasing a servant, 
he purchased not so much the man himself, as the right to the 
labor and services of the man, and even that under certain im- 
portant restrictions. * * * Religious rights were especially 
guaranteed to the servant," &c. Yet the Professor admits, that 
the man whose rights were thus guarded, was really a slave. 
He, therefore, admits that slavery does not necessarily give the 
master unlimited and irresponsible power, does not necessarily 
deprive the slave of all rights, and make him a thing. For if 
there has been a slavery, which recognized the slave as a man, 
and protected his rights as a man, there may be such slavery 
again. Nay — all that would be necessary to make the slavery 
of South Carolina just such, would be a modification of the laws 
regulating it, which Christianty may effect. And even without 
any change in the laws, Christian men may acknowledge and 
protect the rights of their slaves, as they did in the Apostolic 
age, under the code of Rome. 

We are not now inquiring respecting either modern slavery or 
ancient slavery. We desire to ascertain what slavery is in its 
essential nature ; and then we can easily judge of the character 
of those laws which, though not essential to it, are often 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 9 

connected with it. We desire to know precisely what it is, because 
if the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful ; then 
a good man cannot be a slaveholder, even under God's law. 
Nay — on this supposition, God's law could not recognize it, and 
prescribe duties as growing out of it. If it is not, a good man 
may possibly be a slaveholder under a very bad civil code, gov- 
erning his conduct by the Divine law. It is amazing that Prof. 
Haven should assert, that slavery is " contrary to the fundamental 
principles of morality, 1 ' and yet that "it is recognized in the 
Scriptures, both of the O. & N. Testament," and " that it is not 
expressly and directly condemned or prohibited in either;" that 
such slavery as that of Rome was " tolerated" in the church by 
the Apostles ! How could they tolerate in the church a relation 
which reduced men to mere tools, depriving them of all rights, 
and which was in violation of the fundamental principles of 
morality ? 

Paley defines slavery to be " an obligation to labor for the 
benefit of the master, without contract or consent of the ser- 
vant." This definition was accepted by Dr. Wayland in his 
discussion with Dr. Fuller. According to Paley, this obligation 
may arise from crime captivity or debt. This definition makes 
slavery a thing radically different from the first and second defi- 
nitions given. It is, however, defective, in that it omits the cor- 
responding obligations of the master. 

The Princeton Review defines slavery to be the master's right 
to the service of the slave, involving the corresponding obliga- 
tion to treat him as a man, guarding his rights as to family, 
compensation ar.d religious instruction. See Review Oct. 1844. 

I accept this definition. That it is the true one, will appear 
from a few considerations. And here it is important to remark, 
that nothing should be alloyed to otter into a definition, which 
does not necessarily belong to the thing defined. To admit into 
a definition that which is merely accidental, or which may be 
absent, while yet the thing exists, is to confuse and mislead. 

Bancroft says, in the Roman code of slavery, "no protection 
was afforded to limb or life." But in the slaveholding States in 
this country, the killing of a slave is murder. In Massachusetts 
colony it was enacted, " that all slaves shall have the liberties 
and Christian usage which the law of God, established in Israel 
concerning such persons, doth morally require." In Connecticut, 
not only was the killing of a slave murder, but the master was 



10 LECTUHES OX SLAVERY. 

liable to be sued by the slave " for beating, or wounding, or 
for immoderate chastisement." A slave was also capable " of 
holding property in character of a devisee or legatee.' — Judge 
Reeve. According to the same authority, a slave in Connecticut, 
differed from an apprentice mainly in that he served during life. 
Dr. Thompson, of New York, an extreme Abolitionist, says, 
" The Hebrew law of servitude regarded the slave as a p< 
xinder limited obligations to his master." 

Now, since it is admitted that slavery has existed in different 
countries, whilst the laws regulating it have differed very widely, 
it is absurd to confound the thing itself with those laws which 
may be repealed or changed without destroying it. Still more 
absurd is it to judge of the character of Christian slaveholders 
by the slave code of the State where they reside. 

A broad distinction ought to be made between any system of 
slavery, and slaveholding under or in connection with that system. 
"Distinction," says Dr. Chalmers, "ought to be made between 
the character of a system and the character of the persons whom 
circumstances have implicated therewith." Let me try to make 
this point clear. 

Marriage is a divine institution, controled by Divine law, yet 
recognized and, to some extent, controled also by civil law. The 
civil laws which regulate it in any particular country, may be 
very defective and even iniquitous ; yet every good man, when 
he enters into this relation, governs his conduct, not by the civil 
law, but by the Divine law. The civil code of Rome, for exam- 
ple, gave the husband unlimited power over his wife, even to the 
taking of her life ; but no good man would do all that the civil law 
permitted. The same may be said of the parental relation. Yet 
under the worst laws there have been as kind husbands and 
fathers, as under the besf ; because the law of God was their 
rule of action. Slavery is a human, not a Divine institution, 
controled by human law, yet recognized, though not sanctioned, 
by the Scriptures, and regulated also by Divine law. Xone can 
deny, that the Scriptures prescribe the relative duties of mast', rs 
and servants. Now, is it not perfectly clear, that a man who is 
a husband, a father and a master, may as conscientiously obey 
the Divine law in the last relation, as in the two former — even 
: i the civil code regulating it may be either defective or 
most unrighteous'? And is it not equally clear, that the civil 
law may vary in its provisions from the iniquitous code of Rome 



LECTURES O-S SLAVERY. 11 

life-apprentii 
<• — slavery ? 
Holding, then, that slavery is nothi im of 

the master to the servi 

on the master's part to treat him as i , and accordi 

tions of God's word. I pi ;s three qi 

1. Is slaveholding, as thus defined, blas- 

phemy, to be i :: I ircum- 

stances ? Or hav for the time, 

justified peri 

ireumstances now exist, which, for the time. 

itry in holding • pro- 

ignized as Christians, i hurch 

of Chrisl . 

.".. What is the Scriptural ami true method of dealing with 
y, as it e\i>ts in our count: effectually to miti- 

gate its evils whilst it eontin I most safely a lily to 

abolish it ? 

In the di ' we meet with serious difficul- 

ties, arising from its very complicated character. We have to 
consider the relation itself of master and slave, whether if is 
essentially immoral — divested of all that is not essential to it. 
Then we have to consider Jewish slavery, Roman Slavery. 
American slavery. And in considering the last, there is a ques- 
tion respecting the duty of the States in which it exists. 1- it 
their duty, as ace God for their tion, imme- 

diately to abolish it ? If not. is it their duty to adopt, at once, 
plans of gradual emancipation ? Is it their duty to emancipate 
the slaves without colonization — leaving the whites and 

her? Then ai is the duty of indi- 

viduals arid families, where slavery exists by lav . 
duty immediately to emancipate their -lave- ': What is their duty 
' sens, having a moral influence and. a voice in I lation 

of the country? Then there is i respecting the dul 

the churches in the sla arch, 

embracing the free and I , It is extremel; 

in the discussion of a subj ; mplicated, to keep the 

ns involv< parate, as to discuss 

factorily; and the ■ is increased by the extent 

both moralists and popular writers and speakers have conft unded 
them. Let me state very clearly my position. 



12 LECTURES on SLAVERY. 

1. I hold to the unity of the human race — that "God hatli 
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the lace 
of the earth." 

2. Consequently T hold, that the command — "Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself" — applies, in its full force, to every 
human being. The golden rule — "Whatsoever ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye even tlir same unto them' 1 — applies 
as fully to the Africans as to any other people. The curse 
pronounced upon Ham does not justify us in enslaving his 
descendants. I would not buy or hold a man as a slave, unless 
the circumstances were such, that I would justify him in buying 
and holding me, if our relative positions were changed. I would 
no sooner maltreat a slave or wound his feelings, than I would do 
the same thing to his master. 

3. I do not hold, therefore, that slavery is a Divine institution, 
as is marriage, or the parental relation, or as is civil government ; 
nor do I hold that the Bible sanctions slavery. To make the 
broad statement— that it sanctions slavery — would be to say. that 
it authorizes the strong to 'enslave the weak, whenever they are 
so disposed; and it might be construed to justify the abominable 
slave trade. 

4. I distinctly deny the right of any man to traffic in human 
beings for gain, whether that traffic be the foreign or domestic 
slave trade. Men who engage in this inhuman business, are 
monsters. 

5. I deny the right of any man to separate husbands and wives, 
parents and children, for his convenience, or for gain. The 
marriage of slaves, whether recognized by the civil law or not, is 
as valid in God's law, as that of their masters; and what "God 
has joined together, let not man put asunder." 

6. I deny the right of any man to withhold from his slaves a 
fair compensation for their labor. Every master, remembering 
that his Master is in Heaven, with whom there is no " respect of 
persons,"' is bound to give them that which is "just and equal," 
taking into account, of course, his obligation to provide for them 
for life. What the services of any slave are worth, depends, as 
in the case of other men, on circumstances. 

7. I hold it to be the duty of masters not only to give their 
slaves all needed food, clothing and shelter, and to treat them 
kindly, but to afford them the opportunity to receive religious 
instruction, and to read the word of God. Christ said — " Search 






I 



- 

S 

_ 

- 
i 

- 

: 

— 
_ 

I 

_ 



14 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

would refuse to be governed in the treatment of their slaves by 
the law of God, instead of the existing civil code. 

I must say, before proceeding with the argument, that I make 
a distinction between the responsibility of those who introduced 
slavery, and of those who inherited it. On this point I have 
something to say hereafter. I only remark now— that one gene- 
ration may introduce evils into a country, which it may require 
several generations to remove. 

Taking this view of the matter, I deny that the relation between 
master and slave is necessarily sinful. In my debate with Rev 
Mr. Blanchard (as the representative of Gov. Chase and nine 
other gentlemen) the following was the question : «J 5 slaveholding 
in itself sinful, and the relation between master and skive necessa- 
rily a sinful relation r I then maintained, and now maintain, 
the negative of this question, and proceed to the proof. 

]. The first argument I offer, is a presumptive proof, viz: that the 
overwhelming majority of wise and good men, in past ares and 
in the present, have understood the Scriptures to teach that the 
relation is not necessarily sinful. Dr. Chalmers, as already 
remarked, pronounces t^c doctrine that slaveholding is sin in 
itself, "a factitious and new principle, which not only wants but 
winch contravenes the authority of Scripture and Apostolic 
example, and, indeed, has only been heard of in Christendom 
within these few years." Is it credible, that on such a subject, 
the Church of God and all good men have been blind, utterly 
misunderstanding the Scriptures, for eighteen hundred years " 
If so, we certainly need an infallible interpreter. It is a fact that 
slavery existed in New England for many years, and was never 
to any extent made a matter of discipline in the Churches at all! 
till abolished by the civil law. This fact I stated on the floor of 
the Consociation of Rhode Island, and it was not disputed 

It is moreover a fact, stated by President Allen, and not 

ofTet En , Z f WErdS ' ° f Wh ° m the Co ^gationali S t S 

of New England have been justly proud, lived and died a slave- 
holder, and after his death, his slave Titus was appraised at 
thirty pounds Many other good men, as the same authority 
states were slave-holders in New England. Beyond a doubt* 
they believed them & 3lves justified by the circumstances surround- 
ing them. Moreover, the harmonious correspondence between 
the Congretional bodies and our General Assembly, interrupted 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 15 

only within a few years past, proves that they did not helieve the 
Abolitionist doctrine. Nay, many of the first ministers in New 
England do not yet helieve it; and the same may he said of 
eminent men in other denominations. 

Is it credible that it could have been so difficult for the great 
body of good men to see this doctrine, if it had been clearly 
taught in the Bible ? 

2. My second pi*oof that the relation of master and slave is 
not necessarily a sinful relation, is derived from the application 
of the moral law and the golden rule to the facts of the case. 
The principle of that law requires me, as far as other paramount 
duties permit, to improve the condition of my suffering fellow-men. 

Now, it is a fact, admitted and asserted by Abolitionists, that 
the Roman slave code gave to the master unlimited power over 
the slave, even to the taking of his life. It is admitted, that the 
slaves of heathen masters were constantly exposed to the most 
cruel treatment, and even to be murdered for the most trivial 
offence, or for no offence. It is unquestionably true, that the 
Apostles and primitive Christians would have rejoiced to see 
that cruel code abolished, and to see the slaves enjoying freedom. 
But they could not purchase and emancipate them; but they 
might purchase and hold many of them as their own servants, or 
they might continue to hold those they possessed before their 
conversion. Now let us take our stand in one of those churches, 
addressed in the Epistles of Paul, and arraign the slaveholders 
amongst them. What is your charge against them? That they 
reduced those persons to slavery '? No — for they found them 
slaves. That by purchasing or holding them they endorsed and 
upheld the infamous slave code of Rome ? By no possible con- 
struction of their acts can you make out such a charge. That 
they have made the conditiou of the slave less tolerable than it 
was ? This no one will pretend. What, then, is your charge ? 
It must be — that they have greatly improved their condition, 
rendering it incomparably happier than it would have been ! Da 
you call this a violation of the Divine law ? Do you pronounce 
it inconsistent with " the golden rule ?" Can you deny that the 
principles of true benevolence might and did require primitive 
Christians to hold slaves, who otherwise would have been in the 
hands of heathen masters V 

That the Apostles did not approve of the Roman system of 



16 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 

slavery, is clear enough. That that system was utterly incon- 
sistent with the principles of the Gospel, is equally clear. And 
yet, though the Apostles could neither abolish nor modify the 
laws respecting it, they evidently did justify christian men in 
holding slaves, whose condition was far better in their hands, 
than it could otherwise have been ? And will any one deny, that 
Christians in the slaveholding States may do the same thing for 
the same reason ? I have known instances in which slaves, in 
the hands of cruel men, have been purchased by humane men, 
at their own earnest and importunate request ; and I have seen 
their joy, when they passed out of the hands of such men. 

Now, observe — the abolitionists take extreme ground— that 
slaveholding is, in all cases, sinful. If, then, I can prove— that 
any cases — especially great numbers of them — have existed, in 
which, on the strictest interpretation of the word of God, the rela- 
tion was not sinful ; I have completely refuted their doctrine. 
Perhaps the existence of slavery and the exposed condition of 
the slaves, may explain the reason why Moses, under Divine 
direction, allowed the Jews to hold slaves ; and why the Apos- 
tles allowed Christians to do the same thing. The condition of 
the slaves was far better in the hands of good men. This view 
is surely far more honoring to Moses and the Apostles, and to 
Christ, xander whose guidance they acted, than that so commonly 
urged by abolitionists, viz : that it was tolerated by Moses, as 
" P°b r S' am y an< l similar kindred vices" — (Prof. Haven) — and that 
the Apostles did not dare to attack the iniquity, lest they should 
excite persecution ! One cannot help feeling shocked at the 
intimation, that God gave express permission to the Jews to 
indulge in "polygamy and similar kindred vices;" and at the 
intimation, that the Apostles admitted into the church men living 
in a relation which was in violation of " the fundamental princi- 
ples of morality." This leads to — 

3. My third proof that the relation between master and slave 
is not necessarily sinful, which is derived from the teaching and 
the example of Christ and his Apostles. It is admitted, as we 
have seen, that slavery existed and was recognized by the law 
of Moses, amongst the Jews. Dr. Thompson, already quoted, 
says, — " The ranks of slaves were recruited from thieves, debtors, 
and captives in wars; but the slave was always treated as a 
person ; the laws were altogether in his favor ; and perpetual, 
unmitigated chaitleiem was a thing unknown among the He- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 17 

brews" I admit that unmitigated chattleism did not exist under 
the law of Moses, and that slaves were regarded as persons. 
Still Dr. T. admits that they were slaves / and his -own assertion 
that they were treated as persons, proves that real slavery may 
exist without unmitigated chattleism, and without reducing the 
slave to a thing. He says, further, " The enslaving of the heathen 
was permitted to the Israelites under certain regulations." Very 
good. But were they permitted to do a wicked thing, and to 
form a sinful relation, "under certain regulations?" Will this 
be pretended ? If not, then slavehold'mg was not, in those 
circumstances, sinful. 

In admitting, that the Jews were allowed to buy and hold 
slaves, Dr. Thompson has made no undue concession ; for the 
following language admits of no other construction : " Both thy 
bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of 
the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall you buy 
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the 
strangers, that do sojourn among you, of them shall you buy, and 
of their families that are with you, which they begat in your 
land ; and they shall be your possession. And you shall take 
them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit, 
them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever; but 
over your brethren of the Children of Israel, ye shall not rule 
one over another with rigor." Levt. 25:44,46. 

It is admitted, likewise, that the Apostles did receive slave- 
holders into the churches, without requiring them to emancipate 
their slaves. On this point all commentators and critics, of any 
note, are perfectly "agreed. I have already noticed the reference 
of Dr. Chalmers to " Scripture and apostolic example" to prove 
Abolitionists in error. Mr. Barnes, of Philadelphia, who has 
published a book against slavery, says : " It is evident from this 
that there were in the Christian Church those who were masters, 
and the most obvious interpretation is that they were the owners 
of slaves. Some such persons would be converted, as such are 
now. Paul did not say that they could not be Christians. He 
did not say that they should be excluded at once from the com- 
munion. He did not hold them up to reproach, or use harsh and 
severe language toward them. He taught them their duty to- 
ward those who were under them, and laid down principles 
which, if followed, would lead ultimately to universal freedom. 
{ Comment on Eph. 6.) Dr. Wayland, considered an Abolitionist, 

B 



18 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

says: " The moral principles of the Gospel are directly subver- 
sive of the principles of slavery; but, on the other hand, the 
Gospel neither commands masters to manumit their slaves, nor 
authorizes slaves to free themselves from their masters ; and, also, 
it «"oes further, and prescribes the duties suited to both parties in 
their present condition." (Jlor. Philos. p. 212.) 

Dr. Tyler, of East Windsor Theological Seminary, said : " The 
simple question before us is this : Is slaveholding a sin, calling 
for the discipline of the Church ? And this is answered by the 
example of the Apostles. They lived and labored in the midst 
of it, and did not pronounce it a sin ; and we may not and cannot 
do it." 

Dr. Thompson himself, though so extreme an Abolitionist, says : 
" Hence the relation of master and servant was at once lifted (by 
the Apostles) out of the plane of the civil law into the higher 
plane of Christian love. The outward relation constituted by law 
might not cease, it might not be possible legally to terminate this, 
but the essence of slavery was abolished by the fundamental law 
of Christianity." This fundamental law, as stated by him, says: 
"All ye are brethren /" but he forgets that this applies only to 
converted slaves. And so far as they are concerned, Paul guards 
against the very conclusion to which Dr. T. comes, by command- 
inf such servants to serve their " believing masters''' 1 (who were 
masters still) the more faithfully. 1 Tim. 6:1,2. " This shows," 
says Scott, the learned Commentator, " that Christian masters 
were not required to set their slaves at liberty; though they 
were instructed how to behave towards them in such a manner 
as would greatiy lessen and nearly annihilate the evils of 
slavery." 

Let us admit, however, all that Dr. T. has said. And now, if the 
relation of master and slave was necessarily sinful, or sinful in 
the circumstances, how could that relation be lifted up into the 
kingdom of Christ. Surely the Gospel could not thus lift up 
a sinful thing. But we do cheerfully admit, that the relation, 
because it was not sinful, was lifted up to a higher plane, whilst 
the legal relation continued ; and if unmitigated chattleism is the 
essence of slavery, certainly that was abolished. And so the 
Presbyterian church forbids masters to do many things which 
the civil law allows, and enjoins duties the 'civil law does not 
enforce. Thus she has lifted the relation to a higher plane. 

.Now, did the Apostles admit into the church, as Christian 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 19 

brethren, men living in gross sin, without requiring them to 
abandon it ? Did they so dishonor Christ, deceive sinful men ) 
and corrupt the church V 

It is surely remarkable that the man among the Jews who 
exhibited the greatest faith, was a Roman Centurion, who was a 
slaveholder. Whilst our Lord was at Capernaum, " a certain 
Centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready 
to die." lie called on Jesus to heal his servant, and the elders 
of the Jews said that he was worthy — "For he loveth our nation, 
and he hath built us a synagogue." The servant was healed ; 
and Jesus said to the people : " I have not found so great faith, 
no not in Israel." This Centurion, Dr. Thompson admits, was 
a slaveholder; and we here see evidence that true affection can 
exist between a master and his slave. Our Lord healed the ser- 
vant, but did not command the master to manumit him. 

Strangely enough, Abolitionists quote Gal. 3:27, 28, in favor of 
their doctrine : "For as many of you as have been baptized unto 
Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there 
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye 
are all one in Christ. But is it true, that the Jew ceased to be a 
Jew, or a Greek ceased to be a Greek, when converted to Chris- 
tianity ? Will you say, literally, there is neither male nor female ? 
This would leave the world in a somewhat anomalous and rather 
unpromising case. What does the passage mean? Why, 
simply, that as all men are equally sinners, so Christianity places 
all upon the same platform, as sinners saved by grace. But 
though the king and his meanest subject, as converted sin- 
ners, stand side by side ; the king is still a king, and the 
subject still a subject. It is not true that the Gospel annihilates 
the distinctions in society. Strange how, in the effort to sustain 
a favorite doctrine, good men lose sight of the plainest principles 
of language. 

On this passage Doddridge says — " Slaves are now the Lord's 
freemen, and freemen the Lord's servants ; and this consideration 
makes the free humble, and the slave cheerful." 

But the most amazing of all the statements we have seen, in 
the attempt to evade the force of a clear argument, is that of 
Dr. Thompson, in relation to " The Domestic Code of Rome." 
He tells us, the father had unlimited power over his children, and 
the husband unlimited power over the wife. Yet the New 
Testament is entirely silent with respect to. this bloody code of 



20 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

domestic law. "Nowhere in that book can you find a command;, 
'Husbands, do not whip or kill your wives;' nowhere can you 
find a command, ' Fathers do not scourge your sons, nor sell or 
torture them, nor send them into exile, nor put them to death.' " 
But we do find such a command as this : " Husbands, love your 
wives, even as Christ loved the Church. So ought men to love 
their wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth 
himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourish - 
eth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church." Caa a man 
love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and yet whip or kill 
her ? If not, then the New Testament does* forbid such cruelty 
in the strongest possible manner. We do find such a command 
as this : " And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath ; 
but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
Can a father do this, and yet abuse or murder his son? If not, 
then the New Testament does, in the staongest manner, forbid 
such cruelty. Strange, that in the vain effort to sustain Aboli- 
tionism, a minister of Christ would assert that the New Testa- 
ment is silent respecting the cruel domestic code of Rome. 

If all he means to prove by these extraordinary statements, 
was merely — that the Apostles never sanctioned the slave code 
of Rome ; we cheerfully admit it. Most assuredly they never 
sanctioned that horrible code. But the question is, whether, not- 
withstanding that code, they did receive slaveholders into their 
churches, requiring them to govern their conduct by the Divine 
law ; and if they did so, did they thus permit them to live in sin ; 
or did the circumstances justify them, for the time, in holding 
slaves? 

But it is admitted, the Apostles did receive slaveholders into 
the church, as faithful Christians ; did they receive men guilty 
of abusing or murdering their wives and children ? If they had 
done so, the case would have been a parallel one. 

But it is said, though slaveholders were not commanded to 
manumit their slaves, the principles inculcated by the Apostles 
are subversive of slavery, and prove slaveholding sinful. I ad- 
mit that the tendency of the Gospel is to remove all evils, and 
slavery amongst them. But suppose the Apostles had received 
thieves, liars, and drunkards into the church, without requiring 
them at once to abandon their evil practices, and had contented 
themselves with inculcating principles, which, if regarded, would 
ultimately remove such vices from the church, what would we 
say ? But why not, if slaveholding is on a par with such sins ? 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 21 

If slaveholding was a sin, in the circumstances, it is certain that 
the Saviour and his Apostles treated it with a leniency which 
they showed to no other class of sins, and which they could not 
consistently show to any sin. 

I have deemed it unnecessary to go fully into the argument to 
prove the facts, that the law of Moses permitted the Jews to pur- 
chase and hold slaves, and that slaveholders were received into 
the Apostolic churches ; because, as I have shown, leading 
Abolitionists admit them; and none can deny, that all commen- 
tators and expounders of the Bible, of any note, assert them. 

I do not desire to draw any conclusions from this argument, 
which are not fully warranted. I do not profess to have proved, 
that slaveholding, as it exists in this country, is right or justifiable ; 
much less, that the slave codes of the South are right ; but I 
think I have clearly proved, both from the principles of the 
moral law, and from the teaching and example of Moses, of 
Christ and the Apostles, that the relation of master and slave is 
not necessarily or always sinful / that good men have been 
slaveholders ; that circumstances have existed which justified 
them, for the time being, in holding slaves. 

Since, then, the rightfulness or sinfulness of slaveholding de- 
pends on circumstances, we cannot determine, in the case of any 
class of slaveholders, whether they are justifiable in holding slaves, 
until we have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding 
them. Consequently all wholesale condemnation of slaveholding 
is utterly unwarrantable. 

I propose, on next Sabbath evening, to go into a careful 
examination of slavery, as it exists in this country, and to inquire, 
in the light of God's Word, how far Christians in the slaveholding 
States are justifiable in holding slaves ; and whether the Church 
can, on Scripture principles, refuse to hold fellowship with them. 

Let me say, in conclusion, I think I can see how it is that so 
many Abolitionists have become infidels. They have gone aback 
of the Scriptures for their ideas of human rights. They have 
then exhausted their learning and skill in hair-splitting criticism 
upon the language of Inspiration, to compel it to utter the senti- 
ments they have imbibed from other sources, until, vexed at the 
difficulties that press upon them, they have hurled the Bible from 
them, and resolved to walk in their own light. 

You know, my friends, that I might gain popularity by falling 
;n with the current that has set in so strongly in this latitude, and 
raising the Abolitionist shout. But I see before me an august 



LECTURES ON SLA.YEKY. 



tribunal, which I am hourly approaching ; and I see around me 

the raging of fierce passions, threatening the ruin of Church and 
State.° God helping me, I never will yield to popular clamor at 
the expense of His truth, and of the interests of His church and 
of my country. May He subdue passion and guide us into His 
own pure truth. 



LECTURE II. 



DUTY OF SOUTHERN CHURCH KS 



Standing in this place, as a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
charged with the exposition of His Word, and with the interests 
i^t* His blood-bought Church, I know no North and no South, no 
East and no West. These great interests are broad as the earth 
and vast as eternity; and in view of them, questions of mere 
sectional interest are to be losl sight of totally. Neither do I 
know any political party. These interests are destined to live, 
when all the political parties of to-day are gone and forgotten. 
They stand infinitely higher than any question of any political 
party, at any time, in any nation. T belong to no political party. 
1 hold no allegiance to any one of them ; and, therefore, have no 
temptation to lean one way or another in matters of dispute as 
between them. Nor ami so unacquainted with human nature 
as to expect, in the discussion of such questions, and in the 
midst of such state of feeling as exists in this land, to please 
everybody. k> It' I pleased men," said Paul, "I should not be 

the 8ervant of Christ ;*' that is. as I suppose, it" he aimed to please 
men. and if he succeeded generally in pleasing them, this fact 
would be the very best evidence that he did not please his master, 
I 'hrist. The Christian minister, under the solemn ordination 
vow - of his office, is not to inquire whether men will he pleased, 
being charged of Cod to speak the truth, whether they will hear 
or forbear. 

In the preceding discourse T did not discuss the rightfulness <">( 
any slave code, ancient or modem; hut simply the question, 
whether the Scriptures recognize the relation of master and 
slave, as one which circumstances have justified, for the time 
being; or whether the relation is, in itself^ sinful, and, therefore 
always and in all circumstances wrong. I eomhatted only the 



24 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

extreme position of those who are called Abolitionists. And I may 
remark here, that I do not nse the term as one of reproach ; and 
I do not suppose it is so considered by those who hold that 
slaveholding is sinful in itself, or, at least prima facie evidence of 
sin. I have not a word to say in the spirit of denunciation or of 
reproach. The day has come for calm and kind discussion, not 
for denunciation. 

The definition I gave of slavery, is not my own, but that of 
eminent moralists, known the world over, and known as well to 
be opposers of slavery — such men as Paley, Wayland and 
Chalmers. It is useless to say that the definition is an absurdity, 
when such names and such authority are given. I defined slavery 
to be the obligation on the part of the slave to labor for his 
master, involving the corresponding obligation on the part of the 
master to treat him as a man, and to p7'otect all his rights as a 
mem. The question which I raised and discussed was, whether 
circumstances have existed which, for the time being, justified 
good men in sustaining such a relation, governing themselves not 
by the code of Rome, nor by any other civil code merely, but 
governing themselves in this relation by the law of God and the 
directions therein contained. I was very careful to state, still 
further, in eight particulars, what I do, and what I do not, hold 
to be true in this case — as, for example : That I hold to the unity 
of the human race, that " God hath made of one blood all 
nations of men for to dwell upon all the face of the earth •j' 1 conse- 
quently, in the second place, that the moral law and the golden 
rule are applicable to all men of all nations and countries ; and 
thirdly, I hold that slavery is not a divine institution, and has 
never received the sanction of God ; still further, that no human 
being has the right to traffic in his fellow men, either for the 
sake of gain or for the sake of convenience ; still further, that 
the marriage tie is sacred, and the marriage of slaves is as valid 
as that of their matters, so that a man has no more right to sep- 
arate husband and wife among them, than among others ; still 
further, that every man has a right to a fair compensation for his 
labor; that he has a right to an abundance of food and clothing; 
to kind treatment and religious instruction, and to whatever may 
be fairly his due as a man • still further, that it is the duty of 
those connected with slavery to elevate their slaves with a view 
to their freedom, as soon as in the providence of God this can lie 
accomplished. These are the positions I have maintained. 

I took no new ground in stating these positions ; for I have, 



LECTITEES ON SLAVERY. 20 

for the last twenty-five years, advocated every one of those 
principles publicly in the slaveholding and in the free States. I 
make this statement, because it has been asserted that I dare 
not advocate those principles in the slaveholding States. These 
positions, moreover, are fully sustained by the repeated action of 
the General Assembly of our Church, embracing North and 
South. I simply stated the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, 
nothing more, nothing less. I shall have occasion to quote some, 
deliverances of our Church, before I get through. 

Still further — in undertaking to prove that the relation of mas- 
ter and slave is not necessarily sinful, I did not announce one 
principle, or give interpretation to any single passage of Scrip- 
ture, which principle or interpretation has not commanded the 
assent of the Church of God in all ages, and which does not now 
command the assent of the great body of Aviso and good men, 
the world over. There is no controversy about the interpretation 
I put upon the passages, among commentators or critics, or those 
who are admitted to be of authority in the Church of God. 

I have presented three arguments to show that the relation of 
master and servant is not necessarily sinful. The first is a pre- 
sumptive argument, namely : the fact, that in all ages, for the 
last eighteen hundred years, the Church of God has understood 
the Scriptures to teach, that the relation is not necessarily sinful. 
Dr. Chalmers states, that the doctrine that slave-holding is in 
itself sinful, " is a factitious and new principle, unknown to the 
Church of God until within a few years." The second argument 
was the application of the Golden rule, the principle of which is, 
that I am bound to improve the condition of my suffering 
fellow men as far as I can do so consistently with other ] para- 
mount duties. It could not have been sinful for Christians in the 
apostolic age to hold slaves, if by so doing they relieved them 
from exposure to cruel treatment, and even to violent death at 
the hands of pagan masters. While they might not have been 
able to emancipate them, they could raise them from the extreme 
wretchedness and misery in which they lay, and hold them in 
their own households as servants. The teachings and example 
of Moses, of Christ and of the Apostles, constituted my third 
argument; for it is a fact that Moses allowed the relation to be 
formed, and the Apostles received slaveholders into their Churches 
without commanding them to manumit their slaves. These facts 
are admitted by men who declare themselves not only Anti-Sla- 
very, but some of whom glory in the name " Abolitionist." 



26 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 



The conclusion I deduced from these arguments, was not that 
slaveholding, as it exists in this country, is right or justifiable; 
but simply that circumstances have existed, which, for the time 
being Justified the relation; and therefore it is not in itself sin- 
ful ; that since circumstances have existed which justified it 
circumstances may again exist to justify it; so that you cannot 
pronounce slaveholding sinful, without looking at the circum- 
stances. Such was the decision of our General Assembly in 
1845. J 

Now, inasmuch as the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the re- 
lation of master and slave depends upon circumstances, the 
question which I wish to discuss this evening is, whether the cir- 
cumstances which now exist in our own country, do so far justify 
professing Christians, for the time being, in sustaining this rela- 
tion, that they cannot rightfully be excluded from the Church 
of God, or denied Church fellowship merely on that account? 

This is the simple question, and it is a question of unspeakable 
moment. It stands most intimately connected with the peace, 
and purity, and efficiency, and honor of the Church of God in 
this land. There may be such a state of corruption in one part 
of the Church, as would justify another part in refusing to ac- 
knowledge them as Christians, and to hold fellowship with them; 
but until such a state of corruption is shown to exist, we have 
no right to refuse to hold Christian fellowship with any part of 
the visible Church. Schism, or the breaking into fragments of 
the Church of God, is a sin of no ordinary magnitude ; and this 
is not the time to be needlessly rending. Let us examine care- 
fully then upon what ground we may justly say to any portion of 
the Church of God— " We cannot hold fellowship with you." 

It has surprised me very much, in reading so much that has 
been written on this subject, that no clear statement is attempted 
of the principles that should determine Christians in relation to 
fellowship with those differing from them in some particulars. 
When I was a delegate of the General Assembly to the Con- 
sociation of Rhode Island, I raised the question: "What are the 
principles which control you in this matter?" And there Avas 
not a man on the floor who stated any principle at all. Now, it is 
a very hazardous course to refuse to hold fellowship with profess- 
ing Christians, without a clear view of the Scripture principles 
which should control our action. 

1. Bear in mind that the question which I discuss, is not 
whether slavery, as it exists in our oavu country, had a righteous 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 27 

or an unrighteous origin. I have said that its origin was most 
unrighteous. There is no language too strong to be used in 
regard to the exceeding sinfulness of the origin of African 
slavery, as it exists in our country. The Apostles of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the early Christians, could not have established 
Roman slavery, or approved of it ; and yet, as a matter of fact, 
many of those Christians, living under the civil code of Rome, 
did feel themselves at liberty, and probably thought it was their- 
duty, for the time being, to sustain the relation of masters, 
governing their conduct, not by the laws of Rome, but by the 
laws of Jesus Christ. 

2. The question is not whether the slave code of any govern- 
ment, ancient or modern, is right ; whether the slave code of any 
one of the Southern States is right. I do not believe that there 
is a single slave code in the land that approximates what it ought 
to be. Supposing that, for the time being, the existence of 
slavery may be justified, still there is not a single State in the 
Union whose legislation can be commended, as at all what it 
should be. The Apostles and our Lord could not possibly have 
enacted the Roman code, or approved of it; but they and the 
early Christians could live under that code, governing their con- 
duct, not by it, but by the higher law of God. I am sorry to be 
obliged to say, I have not a very favorable opinion of the morals 
of any one of these United States, or of a great many of the 
laws in all these States. I do not believe that the laws of 
Illinois approximate perfection. But I have little confidence in 
any man whose principles rise no higher, and whose conduct is 
no more upright, than the law requires. If any man is disposed 
to treat his wife and Ins children as badly as the civil law will 
allow, he is a vile man. No one would deal with a man whose 
principles allow him to take every advantage which the civil law 
allows. You would refuse to do business with a man whom you 
would be obliged to compel by law to comply with his promises. 
The Christian man, in all the transactions of life, rises above the 
civil code. You cannot protect a man's wife by any civil code. 
Ion cannot prevent men from ill-treating their children by any 
system of civil laws. You cannot make men honest by any code 
in the world. The great matter for us is to inculcate moral 
principles, and to form a public sentiment, that will enforce its 
dictates upon the consciences of men. Such a moral principle 
and such a public sentiment, are stronger than any civil law in 
the world. I am not here to defend civil cod^s. 



28 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

3. Consequently the question is not whether there is a great deal 
of sin connected with slavery — a great deal of suffering and wrong 
growing out of its existence. Undoubtedly this is true. Unfortu- 
nately the people of the South are very much like the people every- 
where. There is in human society a great mixture of good and 
bad, with an unfortunate predominance of the bad. The great 
majority, alas! of the people of any one of our States cannot 
be said to be very regardful of God's law. It would be absurd, 
therefore, to deny that there is a great deal of sin committed in 
connection with this relation. Is it not so in every relation? 
Wherever bad men live, they commit bad acts. Wherever bad 
men have power, they will abuse it. I do not pretend to say, that 
there is not a great deal of evil growing out of this relation ; but 
I will venture to say, that the amount of suffering — bodily suffer- 
ing — connected with it, has been greatly exaggerated. Even bad 
men are not generally disposed to abuse their horses, but rather 
take care of them, as a matter of self-interest ; and if a bad man 
looks upon his slave as he does upon his horse, will he not take 
care of him for the same reason? The amount of suffering, 
therefore, as every one acquainted with the South knows, is 
exaggerated very much. There are great evils in this thing. It 
originated in wrong, and you never can relieve it fiom great and 
dreadful evils ; yet they are not mainly those which are most 
dwelt upon. 

4. Nor am I here to advocate the perpetuity of slavery in this 
country. I have said it was an evil, originating in sin— a great 
evil, and ought to be abolished just as soon as it can be done, in 
the circumstances, by the operation of correct principles, and 
with safety to the parties concerned. 

5. Still further — I do hold, that the tendency of the gospel is 
to abolish slavery ; and it will accomplish the end, if men will 
let it have fair play. The doctrines and principles of the gospel, 
pressed upon the hearts and the consciences of men — the provi- 
dence of God co-operating, will drive it out of our country and 
the world. 

I do not blame any man for hating slavery — for it is a hateful 
thing, and ought to be hated. I do not wonder that men say 
hard things about it — especially when so many false or exagger- 
ated statements are constantly published. The thing is evil. I 
remember, some four years ago, when the General Assembly met 
in New York, and one of our Congregational brethren — a repre- 
sentative from his Association — spoke of the evil of slavery, the 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY, 29 

venerable Dr. McFarland, himself a Virginian, who was Modera- 
tor of the Assembly, said, in substance, " We don't expoct you 
to approve of it; we do not approve of it ourselves. We regard 
it as an enormous evil, and we desire to get rid of it." The 
sentiments be expressed met the approbation of the entire body, 
South and North. 

I do not blame men for not liking slavery. I do not like it 
myself. I do not plead for the perpetuity of it. I earnestly 
advocated emancipation in Kentucky twenty-five years ago. I 
advocated it in the St. Louis Presbyterian within the last live- 
years. 

I do not propose now to discuss the best method of dealing with 
slavery, but simply to try to form an estimate of the character 
of those Christians living in the Slave States, and of our duty 
with regard to them. Are they living in such sin that we are 
bound to reprove them, and cut them off from our fellowship? 
Ts this the view which, in the light of God's word, we ought to 
take of the matter? I am willing to apply its language, in the 
strictness of interpretation, to this case. Let us not palliate sin, 
where it exists; but let us not condemn brethren who are as 
faithful servants of God, as we. 

1. The first question, in examining the circumstances attending 
the existence of slavery, relates to the introduction of it -into our 
country. Upon whom rests the responsibility of its introduction ? 
I raise this question now for this reason : If slavery, as it exists 
in the slave States, were a matter of their own seeking, then, 
according to a very obvious principle of civil law, men may not 
take advantage of their own wrong. If the present slavehokling 
States brought the difficulty upon themselves, then the responsi- 
bility would be greater, and the obligation to remove it at all 
hazards would be greater. But if it was forced upon them, or 
if others helped or pushed them into it — then their responsibility 
would be less. 

The first and the great responsibility rests upon Great Britain. 
Bancroft says : " Before America legislated for herself, the inter- 
dict of the slave trade was impossible. England was inexorable 
in maintaining the system, which gained new and stronger 
supporters by its excess. English Continental Colonies in the 
aggregate were always opposed to the African slave trade. 
Maryland, Virginia, Carolina, each showed an anxious preference 
for the introduction of white men ; and laws designed to restrict 
the importation of slaves, are scattered copiously all along the 



30 

_ - In Yirg 

I 
A lettei : I ..:.."" 

gpnia tol 
I 
: - I - 

t be granted. The 

; fcS _ 

- F thousands at a dis As tteroi 

j»ia was designed to be j 
the tl - those associated with ] 

• " He says: "S 

* absolntely 
1741 But t Englis 
gainst 1 

the States 
upon the X r Soul 

Le«Tslat Element ought 

to be a 
f stares - 

was 1 tare of the « 

r its - - that s This is 

litors 
Independent . 

othez wxj. li -~ ' Dr. 1 / 

- 

: I : 

_ a the 1 

- 
• I the S Georg 

tation oi - I I 

I 

B Soutl 

and greater 

trade 




_ 
- 

; 
-' ■ - ■ - 

I 

■ 

_ 



------ I " _ _ " 

■ • ■ 

i 
looking ... 

States yitt ryaw&zlz 

- 

_ 

[qE 

3 - - 



32 LECTURES ON" SLAVERY. 

slaves. But this cannot be done now; since the new constitution 
forbids emancipation in the State. 

It is not necessary to prove, that we are not bound to do an 
impossibility. Consequently it is evidently not the duty of 
Southern Christians to emancipate their slaves in the State. 

You may say, that such laws ought not to exist. Admit it ; 
but they do exist;, and some of us know, that it is difficult to 
secure righteous legislation in our own city, in regard to the 
observance of the Sabbath, for example. It is not easy, where 
the great majority are not Christians, to repeal bad laws and 
make good ones. 

Do you say, that Southern Christians ought to remove their 
slaves in order to emancipate? The first question they would 
ask, is, whither shall we take them? Will Ohio receive them? 
If the laws have not been altered since I resided in that State, 
they require every colored man, within two weeks after coming 
into the State, to give two resident freeholders as security for 
his support. Would there be no difficulty in obtaining such 
security for any considerable number? Indiana has legislated 
against the settlement of Africans in that State ; and even 
Illinois, with all our boasted freedom, has similar laws ! It may 
be, that these laws are not always or commonly enforced; but, 
nevertheless, they stand on the statute book, ready to be enforced, 
if the case demands it. Suppose a slaveholder who has twenty, 
thirty, fifty, or five hundred slaves, should conclude to purchase 
lands for them in any part of this State ; what would be the 
result? You can judge, as well as I. 

A few years ago, the emancipated slaves of John Randolph 
were brought into Ohio, and land was purchased for them ; but 
the people of the neighborhood rose up and refused to permit 
them to be settled amongst them; consequently they were scat- 
tered about in different families. I fear, a similar experiment 
in Illinois would meet with a similar reception. Let us, at least, 
correct our own legislation, before we condemn that of other- 
States. 

But suppose a Southern slaveholder is willing to remove his 
slaves, and suppose the free States willing to receive them; he 
encounters another difficulty. His slaves are intermarried with 
those of other men ; for generally slaves marry early, and they 
rarely marry on the plantation where they live. Consequently, 
the master who would remove his slaves, cannot do so without 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 33 

sundering family ties. He owns a man, but his neighbor owns 
his wife and children, or he owns the wife and children ; and his 
neighbor owns the husband and father. The slaves are not, and 
ought not to be, willing to separate for life in order to be free. 
A friend of my own, who sent his slaves to Liberia, encountered 
such a difficulty. He owned a woman and her ten children, 
whilst another man owned the husband and father. He tried to 
purchase him and offered a high price, but the owner refused to 
sell. The old man said, " Let my children and my wife go to 
Liberia, where my children can do well." But when they 
reached Louisville, the master's heart relented, and he agreed to 
sell, and immediately the sum was contributed and paid down. 
I saw the happy family, as they passed through Cincinnati in 
company with the master and mistress, who accompanied them 
to Baltimore, and who had provided an ample outfit. In almost 
every considerable family of slaves, such difficulties would be 
encountered ; and there are great numbers of families owning 
slaves, who could not, if they would, furnish them with homes 
in the free States. They cannot do as much for their children. 
In almost any considerable family of slaves very serious difficul- 
ties of this kind would exist. And if they should send their 
slaves into the free States, what prospect of a comfortable sup- 
port would they have? I do not wish to magnify the difficulties 
in the way of emancipation. I simply state facts which every 
one, so soon as they are stated, must see to be true. 

In 1834 a Committee appointed by the Synod of Kentucky, 
recommended a plan of emancipation, containing the following 
recommendations, viz: 

1. We would recommend that all slaves now under twenty 
years of age, and all those yet to be born in our possession, be 
emancipated, as they severally reach their twenty-fifth year. 

2. We recommend that deeds of emancipation be now drawn up 
and recorded in our respective County Courts, specifying the 
slaves we are about to emancipate, and the age at which each is 
to become free. 

3. We recommend that our slaves be instructed in the com- 
mon elementary branches of education. 

4. We recommend that strenuous and persevering efforts be 
made to induce them to attend regularly upon the ordinary 
services of religion, both domestic and public. 



34 EECTUEES OX SLAVEEY. 

5. We recommend that great pains be taken to teach them 
the Holy Scriptures, and that to effect this the instrumentality 
of Sabbath Schools, whenever they can be enjoyed, be united 
with that of domestic instruction. 

Such was the plan recommended — a plan which I — then a 
member of that Synod — cordially supported. But how long was 
it before this outside interference on the part of the Abolitionists 
defeated the whole thing ? And now, within a few years, the 
State of Kentucky has adopted a Constitution which forbids 
emancipation, without removal of the slaves emancipated from 
the State. 

Do you say, then, colonize them in Africa ? Yes, our General 
Assembly has again and again recommended the colonization 
enterprise ; but our Abolitionist friends made violent opposition 
to it, almost as soon as it was fairly under way. Garrison 
initiated this movement by publishing most serious charges ' 
against it, as a great pro-slavery concern. Others, and among 
them many ministers of the Gospel, united with him in this 
opposition, and a great many of the former friends of coloniza- 
tion drew off from it, and became active opposers of it. The 
consequence was, that the enterprise was very nearly ruined. 
And to this day it receives but a very limited support in the free 
States. So that if a large number of slaves should be emanci- 
pated, great difficulty would be experienced in securing the 
necessary funds, unless far greater liberality should be shown 
than heretofore. 

I have long believed that the colonization enterprise is one of 
the most glorious enterprises of the nineteenth century ; and 
one of the most serious charges I feel bound to make against the 
Abolitionists, is their strange and unaccountable opposition to 
this oreat enterprise, fraught with so many blessings to the 
African race. And since they were so greatly in the wrong in 
their estimate of the colonization scheme, and in their opposition 
to it, it becomes them to be somewhat modest now in denouncing 
the Presbyterian Church, which stood firmly by the Society in 
its trials, and sustained it against their unreasonable and un- 
righteous opposition. And now that they see their error, let 
them give Presbyterians the credit which is their due. 

But Christian masters find difficulty in sending their slaves to 
Liberia, in consequence of a prevailing prejudice amongst them 



LECTURES ON" SLAVERY. 35 

against going to a foreign land, of which they have heard so 
many unfavorable stories, and of which they really know so 
little. They are ignorant and timid, and very naturally shrink 
from what seems to them so great and difficult an undertaking. 

A still further difficulty is experienced, as in the case of 
removal to the free States, from the intermarriages of slaves 
owned by different persons. A slaveholder desires to send his 
slaves to Liberia ; but they are intermarried with the slaves of 
other men. Consequently he cannot send them without sunder- 
ing family ties, to which they would not and should not consent. 
Some slaveholders can, in this way, secure freedom to their 
slaves; and, indeed, many have done it; but the large majority 
probably cannot do it, if they would. But suppose a cotton 
planter, for example, has principle and zeal enough in this matter 
to emancipate all his slaves. He has a cotton plantation with 
the usual number of slaves. When he has emancipated them, 
he must sell his farm, and remove to some other place, and 
engage in other business. It requires no ordinary amount of 
moral principle and of zeal for the welfare of slaves to make so 
great a sacrifice. The number of men is small in any part of 
the world, who would exhibit such a degree of disinterested 
benevolence. Nevertheless, under the influence of the Gospel, 
many good men had sacrificed a fortune in order to place their 
slaves where they would be truly free. Still, until the standard 
of piety shall rise higher than it now is in any part of our 
country, the number who will make such sacrifices, will be 
comparatively small. 

The indisputable facts demonstrate, that while some slave- 
holders can emancipate their slaves, the very large majority 
cannot do it, however they might desire it. It is, therefore, 
absurd to demand, as a condition of Christian fellowship, that 
they should do it. 

I say nothing at all in regard to the question, whether it would 
be of advantage to the slaves to be emancipated and to remain 
amongst the whites. It is certainly true, as demonstrated by 
history, that the conflict between different races has resulted in 
the fiercest and most deadly strife known amongst men. 
Whether two races so different, the one so degraded, with so 
little sympathy, could live together on any terms of equality, 
without perpetual conflicts, you can judge as well as I. I am 



36 lectures o:n t slavery. 

not authorized, as a minister of Jesus Christ, to give any 
decision on such a question. 

I have said nothing as to whether the slaves are satisfied in 
their condition. The fact is, I have seen very few satisfied 
people in this world. I have not found a great many in this 
place. It would be strange, if the slaves had so little human 
nature as to be satisfied, when all the rest of mankind are dis- 
contented. I have little doubt, if the matter were presented to 
them, and if they had an opportunity to choose between freedom 
and slavery, they would generally prefer freedom. This is 
simply saying, that they are men. In ordinary circumstances I 
would say with Paul, " If thou mayest be free, choose it rather." 

The difficulties attending the question of emancipation, are 
undoubtedly great ; and in determining the duty of Southern 
Christians, the question is pertinent, whether there were greater 
difficulties in the way of emancipation in the Apostolic churches? 
So far as I can ascertain, there was no law in the Roman Empire 
against emancipating slaves. If there was any such law, it has 
yet to be produced. My impression is, there was no such law. 
There must have been circumstances to justify the relation of 
master and slave, or the Apostles would have required Christians 
to emancipate. But it is certain that the difficulties in the way 
of emancipation now, are as great, to say the least, as they were 
in the Apostolic age. How can you, then, come, in the face of 
the fact, which is admitted by leading Abolitionists, by Dr. 
Wayland and Dr. Chalmers, that the Apostles did not require 
emancipation, and make this demand of Southern Christians, 
when there are difficulties in their way at least as great as those 
existing in the Apostolic age? Dr. Chalmers, and Dr. Tyler, of 
East Windsor Theological Seminary, take the ground, that in 
making such a demand, you do it in the face of the teachings and 
the example of the Apostles of Christ. 

Do you say, it is their duty to seek to change the laws of the 
States in which they reside? Admit it; then the question arises 
— How ought they to go to work to produce this effect? You 
ask them to change their laws. Where the people frame the 
laws, to effect any favorable change in them, you must change 
the public sentiment, and get the majority in favor of the change 
— a permanent majority; otherwise there will be a re-action, and 
the laws be made worse than before. How are Christians to go 
to work at this thing ? 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 37 

You can scarcely say, that the Bible prescribes the mode in 
which such a thing ought to be done. They must, therefore, 
decide for themselves. 

Let us look at facts. How was it in the State of Kentucky? 
There was, a few years ago, a better prospect of securing laws 
in favor of emancipation in that State, than in any other — if we 
except, perhaps, Maryland and Missouri. Leading men in the 
State were in favor of it. Henry Clay says, in one of his 
speeches, that he labored for this thing many years ago, and 
failed. 

Within ten years, a new Constitution was adopted in Kentucky, 
and the question was raised respecting emancipation. It came 
up in the form of what was called " The Open Clause" in the 
Constitution, admitting of Emancipation. What were the facts ? 
The Presbyterians generally favored " The Open Clause ;" and 
several prominent ministers did what I had not known Presby- 
terian ministers to do before — they discussed the question through 
the State. Dr. Young, the able President of Centre College, 
held a public discussion at Danville, with a politician, in which 
he advocated emancipation, with great ability. Some expressed 
the opinion that the Institution would be injured, for it was 
patronized largely from the South. But the result was widely 
different. Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, now principal Professor 
in the Danville Theological Seminary in Kentucky, ran as the 
emancipation candidate for the Convention, and, to use a common 
phrase, stumped it through the District, exposing the evils of 
slavery. But he was not elected. Presbyterians through the 
State, so far as I can learn, generally took this ground. I took 
occasion, at that time, though residing in Cincinnati, to publish 
a letter in Kentucky, urging emancipation. The other leading 
denominations did not sustain us in this effort. The Methodist 
Church was divided, and very naturally the South church went 
to the other extreme. A leading Baptist minister ran as a pro- 
slavery candidate against the Hon. Tuos. F. Marshall, and 
was elected. And strangely enough, many men not holding 
slaves, opposed emancipation, because the slaves, it was said, 
would be placed on an equality with them! It w T as not only the 
slaveholding, but the non-slaveholding portion of the community, 
that defeated the cause of emancipation. The result was, that 
instead of getting a Constitution favorable to emancipation, one 



38 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

was adopted that totally forbids it. I am not sure that many of 
our Abolition friends here have heard of these things. If any 
one in Kentucky had greatly abused his slaves, they would 
probably have heard the news. Let the whole truth be known,, 
and let the Presbyterians have due credit. 

There would be much greater difficulty in other Southern 
States, in effecting any change in the laws in favor of emanci- 
pation ; and the very first effort to effect any such change, 
especially in the present state of feeling, would merely aggravate 
the evil. The cause of this state of feeling may appear here- 
after ; the fact of its existence is painfully evident. 

It is, moreover, a fact, that many of the wisest and most 
earnest friends of emancipation of the slaves, believe that any 
plan of emancipation without colonization, would do more harm 
than good. Henry Clay is known to have been opposed U> 
slavery, and he threw his great influence in favor of gradual 
emancipation. Let me quote a sentence or two from a speech 
of his before the Colonization Society. 

Said Mr. Clay: — " If I could be instrumental in eradicating this 
deepest stain upon the character of our country, and removing 
all cause of reproach on account of it by foreign nations — if I 
could be instrumental in ridding of this foul blot the revered 
State that gave me birth, or that not less beloved State which 
kindly adopted me as her son, I would not exchange the proud 
satisfaction which I should enjoy, for all the triumphs ever 
decreed to the most successful conqueror." 

And yet he said: — "If the question was submitted, whether 
there should be immediate or gradual emancipation of all the 
slaves of the United States without their removal or colonization, 
painful as it is to express the opinion, I have no doubt that it. 
would be unwise to emancipate them. For I believe that the 
aggregate of the evils which would be engendered in society, 
upon the supposition of such general emancipation, and of the 
liberated slaves remaining among us, would be greater than all 
the evil-: of slavery, great as they unquestionably arc." 

Such was the opinion of that eminent man ; and it is the pre- 
vailing opinion in the South. All efforts there to get a change of 
laws in favor of emancipation without colonization, must be 
fruitless. Such are the difficulties now existing. And certainly 
we have no right to censure the feeling, so long as we ourselves 
cherish it. 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 39 

An able writer in the South, in an article on this subject, has 

charged upon us our inconsistency. " You of the North who 
reprove us," he remarks in substance, "make laws against a few 
straggling blacks, who come amongst you, and yet ask us to 
turn loose three or four millions of them in our midst !" It 
would be difficult to answer this retort. For Christians at the 
South to attempt such a change in the laws, as we have supposed, 
would be eminently unwise. Such a course would only prevent 
those improvements in the laws whieh may be secured. 

What, then, ought our Southern brethren and our Church do? 
Do you say. let them, if they cannot free their slaves legally, 
recognize them as men, and apply the golden rule in their treat- 
ment of them ? I agree with you heartily. You will not contend, 
however, that they must have the responsibility of maintaining 
their slaves, without requiring them to labor. This would be 
most unreasonable. No man should be held responsible for 
persons whom he cannot control. If held legally responsible, 
the master must have the right of control ; or he is a slave to 
the servant. But in the e\ f authority, let them treat 

them as men, guided by the Divine law. 

Such precisely is the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. 
Dr. Thompson maintains, that while the Apostles did not abol- 
ish slavery, they lifted it up from the plane of the Civil law to 
the higher plain of the Gospel law. Now, suppose the Presby- 
terian Church has done the same thi 

Let me read an extract from the action of the General Assem- 
bly of ISIS. That body speaks of "the practice into which 
Christian people have most inconsistently fallen, of enslaving a 
portion of their brethren of mankind. For that J God hath made 
of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of 
the earth. " This is precisely in accordance with my position. Do 
you -ay. this doctrine could not be preached in the South'? This 
document was adopted unanimously. Dr. Baxter, of Virginia, 
was a member of the committee that reported it. The Assembly 
further urge the Churches to endeavor " to obtain the complete 
abolition of slavery throughout Christendom, and if possible, 
throughout the world." Is not this strong enough? 

It may be said, this paper was adopted many years ago. I 

r, it was re-affirmed in 1^40 by both the North and the 

South, unanimously — and again in IS 50. In the resolution of 



40 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 

1846 the Assembly said in substance, that for sixty years the 
General Assemblies have been uttering the same sentiments, 
which can be proved by the word of God. In a speech in the 
last General Assembly, in Indianapolis, I declared that I hold 
the doctrine of the paper of 1818 to be true to the letter. And 
yet I was elected with extraordinary unanimity to a Professorship 
in the Theological Seminary of the Northwest. What evidence 
is there, then, that the church has changed her ground? 

In 1845, the General Assembly received several petitions from 
Abolitionists to exclude all slaveholders from the Church. The 
Assembly decided, that they could not exclude any one from the 
Church, as a slaveholder, without looking at the circumstances. 
In that document, which I had the honor of drafting, the follow- 
ing language is found : " We exhort every believing master to 
remember that his Master is also in heaven, and in view of all 
the. circumstances in which he is placed, to act in the spirit of 
the Golden Rule, ' Whatsoever ye would that men should do 
to you, do ye even so to them." Such was the ground taken 
in 1845, and every Southern member voted for it. About 
thirteen from the North did not. 

Do you say, that the church ought to go farther, and forbid the 
traffic in men, and the separation of husbands and wives. Thi3 
has been done. Let me read the law of our church on that point. 
The General Assembly of 1818 used the following language : 

" We enjoin it on all church Sessions and Presbyteries under 
the care of this Assembly, to discountenance, and as far as 
possible, to prevent all cruelty of whatever kind in the treatment 
of slaves; especially the cruelty of separating husband and wife, 
parents and children, and that which consists in selling slaves to 
those who will either themselves deprive these unhappy people 
of the blessings of the gospel, or will transport them to places 
where the Gospel is not proclaimed, or where it is forbidden to 
slaves to attend upon its institutions. The manifest violation or 
disregard of the injunction, here given, in its true spirit and 
intention, ought to be considered a just ground for the discipline 
and censures of the Church. And if it shall ever happen that a 
Christian professor in our communion shall sell a slave, who is 
also in communion and good standing in the church, contraiy to 
his or her will and inclination, it ought immediately to claim the 
particular attention of the church judicatories; and unless there 
be such peculiar circumstances attending the case as can but 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY, 41 

seldom happen, it ought to bo followed without delay by a 
suspension of the offender from all the privileges of the church, 
till he repent and make all the reparation in his power to the 
injured party." 

Such is the law of the Presbyterian Church. 

The Assembly of 1S45 used the following language: "The 
Assembly are not to be understood as denying that there is evil 
connected with slavery. Much less do they approve those 
defective and oppressive laws by which in some of the States it 
is regulated. Nor would they by any means countenance the 
traffic in slaves for the sake of gain ; the separation of husbands 
and wives, parents and children, for the sake of ' filthy lucre' or 
for the convenience of the master; or cruel treatment of slaves 
in any respect. Every Christian and philanthropist certainly 
should seek, by all peaceable and lawful means, the repeal of 
unjust or oppressive laws, and the amendment of such as are 
defective, so as to protect the slaves from evil treatment by 
wicked men, and secure to them the right to receive religious 
instruction." 

Do you say, the Church should go further, and condemn the 
mere chattelism of human beings? Let me read again: "Nor 
is this Assembly to be understood as countenancing the idea, that 
masters may regard their servants as mere property and not as 
human beings, rational, accountable, immortal. The Scriptures 
prescribe not only the duties of servants, but also of masters, 
warning the latter to discharge those duties, knowing that their 
Master is in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with 
him." 

Is not this language strong enough? 

It may be asked whether the Presbyterian churches at the 
South, regard this injunction? Let me read you one out of a 
great number of evidences I could give you upon this subject. 
The pastoral letter of the Presbytery of Tombigbee, of Missis- 
sippi, after referring to the repeated action of the General 
Assembly, states, that " many of our best and ablest ministers have 
devoted themselves, in whole or in part, to special labor for the 
solvation of these people ; and our Southern churches, presby- 
teries and synods, are yearly showing an increased interest and 
watchfulness in regard to it." Again : " Among our own churches 
this presbytery is glad to know and record the fact that religious 
privileges are enjoyed by the servants in very many places, in 



42 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

common with their masters, such as to leave them without 
excuse. And several of our churches report a large colored 
membership, even equal to, or larger, than the membership of 
whites. * * * * * * * 

" The moral law is the absolute rule of moral duty, and so also 
it is the charter of human rights. It is the right of every human 
being, prince, subject and citizen, parents and children, masters 
and servants, to obey the law of God. No government in the 
commonwealth, or in the household, can be called anything less 
than unrighteous, which denies to any of God's intelligent 
creatures the right of obeying those moral commands, or which 
inhibits the free exercise of that right. One of the very highest 
duties of the master, in rendering to his servants that which is 
just and equal, is to secure for them the right and opportunity to 
worship and obey God, to protect them in the free exercise, and 
encourage them in the constant practice thereof. * * * 
" Be careful to protect them in the enjoyment of the rights, and 
encourage them in the duties of the family. The chiefest of 
these is that of marriage. Unfortunately the law does not throw 
its protection around them in this behalf; although public senti- 
ment, which is nearly as powerful as law, does. But, still, 
sometimes by removals and deaths, occasions of hardship under 
this head occur, although we hope not among you. And yet, so 
sacred are these rights to your servants, and so debasing must be 
any denial of them, that we feel it to be our duty to put you on 
your guard, and renewedly to invoke your diligence, exhorting 
you rather to suffer pecuniary damage yourselves, than to allow 
moral wrong to accrue to your servants. Did they know that 
they were absolutely protected from wrong in the wanton 
dissevering of the tie of marriage, they would value it more and 
cherish it with more constancy. Again, encourage them in the 
discharge of proper parental duties towards their children — 
especially whenever they seem to estimate their responsibilities 
aright, and aim to discharge them on Christian principles. 
Encourage them, also, where the parents are pious, to hold do- 
mestic worship ; which is, of itse'f^ one of the primary Christian 
duties, and besides, it is one of the surest means of confirming 
the family tie, and one of the divinely appointed means of training 
children to the practice of righteousness and the knowledge of 
salvation. And then, not only grant them the right, but urge 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 40 

them to embrace the privilege of presenting their children for 
Christian baptism. By these means much may be clone to rescue 
the family tie from neglect, to make them value its privileges and 
enjoy its blessings. 

This language speaks for itself. 

Slaves are not only treated as men, but those that are pious, 
have the right to present their children for baptism. I have 
myself repeatedly baptised the children of slaves, and many 
other ministers have done the same. Now, will any one, in 
view of these documents, say, that Presbyterians regard their 
servants as mere tools, with souls in them? I have quoted the 
action of but one Southern Presbytery. I could read you by 
the hour from other Presbyteries and Synods. It is a well-known 
fact that many of our ministers have devoted themselves par- 
ticularly to the instruction of the slaves, among whom I may 
mention Dr. C. C. Jones, who, while laboring for the blacks, 
was called to a Theological Professorship. Afer filling the 
Professorship for a time, he returned to his former work. I 
prefer giving the testimony of others rather than my own. 
Some years ago, when I labored in Cincinnati, Rev. Mr. King, 
of Canada, who has long been engaged in laboring among the 
fugitive slaves, and who had been South, and inherited through 
his wife several slaves, and who was then removing them to 
Canada, delivered an address in my church, in winch he stated 
the course pursued by our church in the South, and, with all his 
anti slavery feelings, he said, instead of finding fault with Pres- 
byterians of the South, they ought to be encouraged in their 
work, since they were doing all they could in ameliorating the 
condition of the slaves. Such was the testimony of a man then 
devoted to the anti-slavery cause, and now devoting his time to 
the fugitives. He had the opportunity to be correctly informed, 
for he had labored in the South several years. 

Let me lay before you the testimony of the Reverend Dr. 
Humphrey, so long President of Amherst College, father of the 
respected pastor of one of the churches in this city. 

"Many masters and mistresses spend much of the Sabbath in 
giving them (the slaves) moral and religious instruction, which 
is greatly blessed to them." Again: "But a few, in the free 
States, I believe, are aware to what an extent the owners of 
large plantations at the South are co-operating with religious 



44 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

societies in bringing their slaves under the sound of the Gospel, 
nor of its saving effects upon tens of thousands who hear it. In 
the cities, congregations and churches of colored people, mostly 
slaves, have been gathered by themselves and under pastors of 
their own kindred. Elsewhere, slaves and their masters worship 
and sit together at the Lord's table. The Spirit of the Lord is 
poured out upon the bond as well as the free, if not more copi- 
ously. I had no idea myself, till lately, how much is doing in 
the slave States for the blacks, nor of the success of missionary 
labors among them." 

lie gives, in the same connection, a statement of the number 
of colored members in different churches, as well as of mission- 
aries employed amongst them. 

I do not stand on the defensive here. I venture to say, to the 
honor of my church, that no other church has gone so far, or 
done so much, to promote emancipation. I can demonstrate 
that the Presbyterian church has emancipated more slaves than 
all the Abolitionists in this land. I am ready to compare notes 
on this subject, at any time. 

We have not made so much noise, perhaps ; nor have the 
emancipated slaves gone to Canada. They have either been 
emancipated in the States, before the laws forbade it, or have 
gone to Liberia. We have not stood at a distance and passed 
hard resolutions, or published hard sayings. We have stood on 
the ground and made our influence felt amongst slaveholders. 
We have advocated emancipation, where there seemed a pros- 
pect of promoting it. 

I stated, last Sabbath, that slavery existed many years in New 
England, and that it was never, to any extent, made matter of 
discipline by the churches, until abolished by the civil law. I 
observe, in one of the city papers, that some one signing himself 
"New England," denies the correctness of my statement. 
Allow me to say, that I never make statements upon such 
subjects without knowing them to be correct. He refers to the 
Rev. Dr. Hopkins, who attacked the slave trade in Newport, 
and states that in 1*784 he made slaveholding a matter of disci- 
pline, and in 1785 several other churches had freed themselves 
from this thing. The fact which he denies, I stated in my "Ten 
Letters to the Delegates of the Congregational Association of 
New England," some five years ago, and asked them to say 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 45 

whether it was true, and it was not denied. Four years ago, I 
stated the same fact before the Consociation of Rhode Island, 
while the successor of Dr. Hopkins was present, and it was not 
denied. 

It was not more than ten years ago, that Dr. Bacon introduced 
a resolution into the Association of Connecticut, recommending 
the churches to commence discipline with those members impli- 
cated in slaveholding. Ten years ago, there were known to be 
slaveholders in good standing in the churches in Connecticut. 
Still further, it is only fifteen years ago, that Dr. Tyler, the 
venerable Professor in East Windsor Theological Seminary, 
used this language: "They (the Abolitionists) denounce us as 
pro-slavery, because we will not shut our pulpits against South- 
ern ministers. But the Bible will not justify them in the ground 
they take. The great Head of the Church communed with such 
men as many of the Southern Christians are, and I will not 
refuse to do it." The venerable Professor was neither removed 
nor censured. The same ground is taken by others. So, you 
see, New England is not yet converted to the new doctrines. 

When the question in regard to correspondence with our 
Assembly was before the Consociation of Rhode Island, it was 
decided negatively by a bare majority. One of the oldest 
ministers of that body said, that the Presbyterian Church was 
doing more than all the Abolitionists together for the benefit of 
the slaves. The Rev. Dr. Thayer said, eloquently, that if the 
Government were broken into fragments, he would still stretch 
his arm across and shake hands with his brethren. And even 
after I had discussed this subject in New England, I received a 
letter from a distinguished Congregational minister, inquiring 
whether I would encourage the Board of Directors of one of 
their Theological Seminaries to elect me to a Professorship. 
New England is not yet converted, or no one there would have 
desired me to teach theology for them. 

It is not long since Dr. Lord, the venerable President of 
Dartmouth College, published two pamphlets more pro-slavery 
than anything I ever published, and he is there still in good 
standing. Rev. Dr. Stiles, also once a slaveholder, and who has 
recently published a book against Abolitionism, was for several 
years pastor of a Congregational Church in New Haven. Even 
the Associate Reformed Brethren have not been able to carry 



46 LECTUKES ON SLAVERY. 

out the Abolitionist doctrines in the South. The Methodist 
Church North, has not done it. They are still agitated, and 
likely to divide again. If it is so hard to convert men in the 
North, is it strange that Southern Christians are not converted 
to Abolitionism ? The old adage is applicable here : " First cast 
out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see 
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." 

But the question returns : "What ought our brethren of the 
South to do? and what ought the Presbyterian Church to do ? 
In my Ten Letters to the Congregational delegates, I said in 
substance, " We have examined this matter carefully, and we 
think we are right; if you have any light, we would be glad to 
receive it. What ought we to do'?" One of them intimated to 
me that they would probably answer the Letters, if they did not 
like them, after having examined them ; but they have never 
done so. 

Again, four years ago, I presented the same question to the 
Consociation of Rhode Island. I said substantially: "Brethren, 
we want light. If we are guilty, our sin is one of omission or 
commission; which is it? What is your charge? Can you tell us 
what we ought to do ?" 

Not a man on that floor attempted to say what our sin was, or 
what our duty. And when I took my leave of them, after the 
passage of the resolution cutting off the correspondence with us, 
I said to them in substance : " I shall be obliged to report to 
the General Assembly, that not a man of you ventured to say 
what is the sin that has led you discourteously to terminate a 
correspondence sought by yourselves." The Moderator stated 
that he had intended to vote with the majority, but in view of 
what he had heard, he must cast his vote the other way. 

The Boston Recorder, which I believe to be the most ably 
edited religious paper in New England, took up this matter, 
after the discussions were published, and in view of my challenge 
in the " Ten Letters" and before the Consociation, made the 
following remarks : " This suggestion we are fairly bound to 
meet. If they are doing in all respects what the great law of 
beneficence and right requires, our complaints fall harmless at 
their feet. We would that some of those acute minds that have 
made slavery the subject of much study, would turn their reflec- 
tions mainly upon this point. We would that the subject should 
be viewed rather in the concrete than in the abstract ; that we 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 47 

should take the foots as they are, and in a full and candid view 
of them decide the Christians now in the position of slavehold- 
• \ - ruth, may be fairly required to do. Until that is 
done, nothing Mill he done towards any desirable change in the 
action of slaveholders and in the condition of the slaves. We 
must confess that so far as our observation extends, this point 
has been too much avoided." 

It is true, as the • says, this point has been too . 

d. That is. those friends of ours, who have been condemn- 
ing our church, have been heaping reproach upon us without 
being able to specify any sin, or tell us what we ought to do I 
The call of the Boston Recorder has met no response, even 
though the appeal was made to the ate minds of Xew 

England. Why do they not respond? However humble in 
- If, I spoke as the representative of the General Assembly,. 
and in the name of that venerable body I made the call. No 
answer has been made to this Lour — no attempt at an answer has 
been made. Is it not strange? I have been denounced as pro- 
slavery, and the Church has been denounced as pro-slavery, and 
for five years this challenge has been the public, and not 

a man has been bold enough to answer it. I venture boldly to 
defy any one to answer it. 

The question recurs — "What ought the Presbyterian Church to 
do ? If these gentlemen cannot tell, after so many years of 
Bgitation, it must be a difficult matter. Shall we cut off all these 
Southern brethren, when their Northern brethren, the very nun 
who reprove them, cannot tell what they ought to do ? 

Finally, I hold communion with my Southern brethren, as well 
as my Northern brethren, because G oioied the one as 

distinctly as he has tie other, by his special blessing upon their 
labors. He has been with not only the Presbyterian Church as 
a church, but with the churches in the South. We have a Bible 
test by which to settle this question. When the Saviour gave sight 
to a blind man, the Pharisees said: " We know that Cod spake 
unto Moses : as for this follow, we know not whence he is.*' lie 
made the following conclusive answer : " Nov,- vre know that 
God heareth nut sinners, but if any man be a worshipper of God 
and doeth his will, him God heareth." When Peter received 
Cornelius and his family into the church, and was called 
account for it, he answered: "Forasmuch then as God gave 



48 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

them the like gift as he did to us who believed in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, what was I that I could withstand God?" The Holy- 
Spirit was poured out upon them; and for Peter to refuse to 
acknowledge them, would have been to withstand God ! Here 
is a Bible test. Is it true then that God has heard the prayers 
of Southern Christians ? Has the Holy Spirit set his seal upon 
the Gospel, as his servants preach it there ? Hear the testimony 
of a gentleman of high standing, who will be deemed good 
authority by most Abolitionists. The Rev. Dr. Stowe, of 
Andover, says : " I know individuals who are slaveholders, and 
particular churches which include slaveholders, whom, according 
to all the evidence I can gather, Christ does accept, and those 
individuals and those particular churches, on my principles, I 
cannot reject and I will not. This ' is true ground — "God 
heareth not sinners." 

It cannot be denied, that the churches in the slaveholding 
States have enjoyed many powerful revivals of religion, and that 
the Gospel preached amongst them is the power of God to 
salvation to multitudes of souls. Not a few of the ablest minis- 
ters in the different denominations, if ever truly converted, were 
converted in such churches. This is true, for example, of the 
late Dr. A. Alexander, for forty years an honored Professor in 
our oldest Theological Seminary, the beloved and venerated 
instructor of a large portion of our ministers. It is true of Dr. 
Daniel Baker, who, for many years, was wonderfully honored of 
God, as an instrument in the conversion of men, and whose 
successful labors were mainly in the South. 

For myself, if I know anything of the religion of the heart, I 
experienced the change in a church in a slaveholding State, in 
a glorious revival. For a number of years, I exercised my 
ministry in churches containing slaveholders, and was permitted 
to rejoice in many powerful revivals. I witnessed the same 
awakenings, the same struggles under conviction, the same 
humble trust in Christ, the same reformation, the same joy in 
young converts, which I have seen in churches in the free States; 
and I saw the same earnest desire for the progress of Christ's 
cause, the same agonizing prayers, the same Christian liberality, 
the same self-denial, which I have seen elsewhere. I have been 
with those Christians through all the varieties of temptation, 
losses, bereavements, sicknesses and sufferings ; and I have stood 
by their death-beds, poured the precious promises into their 



LECTURES ON LAVERY. 49 

■ears, and witnessed their triumphant departure from this world. 
Some of the most triumphant deaths I ever witnessed, occurred 
amongst them. I have sometimes felt, as if I would gladly 
travel a thousand miles to witness such triumphs of grace again. 
If I have not seen genuine and powerful revivals amongst them, 
I have never seen revivals anywhere. If those churches are not 
true churches of Christ, I know none that are. 

Will you ask me to refuse to acknowledge as my brother, those 
whom God has acknowledged as his children ? Shall I refuse to 
commune with those in whom the Holy Spirit [dwells, and with 
whom my Saviour holds fellowship ! The very idea seems to me 
impious. Who are we, that we should refuse to hold communion 
with those whom God has called into His kingdom, whose. 
prayers he answers, whose labors he blesses, and with whom he 
condescends to dwell? 

It is a sweeping doctrine, which is urged upon us by Abolition- 
ists. It not only cuts off all the churches and Christian people 
of the South, as unworthy of confidence ; but it equally cuts off 
the Puritans of New England — such men as President Edwards, 
and a multitude more. It sweeps away the New England 
churches, all of which were, directly or indirectly, involved in tho 
sin of slavery. The moral law, the teachings and examples of 
Christ and his Apostles, and the witness of the Holy Spirit — all 
forbid us to believe the doctrine, or to submit to the demands of 
Abolitionists. 

From its earliest commencement in this country, the Presbyte- 
rian Church has occupied substantially the same ground, not 
" tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine." Her first 
utterance, on the subject of slavery, date as far back as the year 
1787. The paper then adopted by the Synod of Philadelphia 
and New York (for the General Assembly was not yet organized) 
exhorted the members of the churches to give those slaves such 
education as would fit them for freedom. From that day to this, 
all the utterances of our church have been of the same character. 
True, some few ministers, and others, in the North, have been 
disposed to take extreme positions in one direction, and some in 
the South have had leanings in the opposite direction. But the 
church, as a body, has never changed her position ; and, I trust, 
she never will. 

Allow me to say, in conclusion, if I believed that the tendency 
of Abolitionism was to remove slavery from our country, it would 



50 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

at once rise many degrees in my estimation. But after the most 
careful examination, I am compelled to believe, that, whilst it 
divides churches and imperils the interests of the country, it 
tends strongly to perpetuate slavery, and to aggravate all its 
evils. I do most sincerely believe, that the course pursued by 
the Presbyterian Church does tend most effectually to meliorate 
the condition of the slaves, to prepare them for freedom, and to 
effect their emancipation, whenever in the providence of God, 
emancipation shall be practicable. All this and more I expect to 
prove in my next lecture. 



LECTURE III. 



THE TRUE MODE OF DEALING WITH SLAVERY. 



The discussion of the subject of slavery thus far, has related 
exclusively to the question respecting the Christian character 
of those churches that stand connected with it, and the 
treatment which they ought to receive at the hands of their 
brethren. This discussion involves two important inquiries. 
First. Whether slaveholding is sin in itself — sin under all 
circumstances ; because if it be so, it Avould follow that all 
slaveholders are living in sin, and ought, therefore, to be subjected 
to the discipline of the church, so far as they are members of 
the church. The second question is this: Since slaveholding is 
not in itself sinful, but the sinfulness of it depends upon circum- 
stances ; do circumstances now exist in this country, which 
justify Christians, for the time being, in sustaining this relation ; 
so that they cannot properly be excluded from membership in 
the Church of Christ? 

I think I have proved, that slaveholding is not necessarily 
sinful, but that the moral character of it depends upon circum- 
stances ; and I think I have shown, that the circumstances 
attending its existence in our country, arc such as to justify 
many Christian people in sustaining the relation of masters, for 
the time being; and consequently, we cannot, on Scriptural 
ground, refuse to hold fellowship with the churches in the slave- 
holding States. I now propose to discuss the following question : 

What is the true method of treating slavery, as it exists in our 
country, so as most effectually to mitigate its evils, tohilst it 
continues, and so as most speedily and safely to abolish it? 

This question is one of infinite importance, involving not only 
the duty of the Church of Christ towards nearly four millions 



52 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

of our fellow creatures, but the interests of them and their 
descendants for generations to come. On such a question it is 
undoubtedly true, that good men may differ, though equally 
anxious to do what is wisest and best. Two physicians, equally 
anxious for the recovery of a patient, may differ very materially 
respecting the best mode of treatment. Two statesmen, equally 
patriotic, may differ widely respecting the best means of promo- 
ting the interests of their country, in any important crisis. And 
here I cannot but notice a most serious blunder on the part or 
Abolitionists. It has been their habit to condemn as pro-slavery 
every one who ventures to differ from them, either respecting 
the character of Christian slaveholders, or respecting the best 
method of treating the evil. Thus they have placed multitudes 
of the best men and the warmest friends of the slaves, in the 
pro-slavery ranks. " I do hope," said Dr. Chalmers, " that this 
obtrusive spirit of theirs will have an effectual check put upon 
it; it impedes, besides, the very object which their own hearts 
are set upon, and Avhich there are other hearts, as zealous, but 
only somewhat wiser, which are as much set upon as theirs." 
No procedure can be more unwise, in the effort to accomplish a 
great and difficult object, than to throw the influence of men 
against it, who are aiming at the same result, by adopting 
measures they cannot approve, and then denouncing them for 
refusing to co-operate. It is infinitely better to concede some- 
thing to the conscientious convictions of others, in order to 
adopt a platform on which all friendly to the object can stand 
and work together. 

That I may not be misunderstood, I wish, at the outset, to say 
a word regarding the question now so seriously agitating the 
country, viz : the extension of slavery into the Territories. 
Respecting the questions disputed between the two great politi- 
cal parties, I have nothing to say. The pulpit is not the place 
to express opinions on mere political issues. But I am very free 
to say — that, regarding slavery as a great evil, I should be sorry 
to see it extended over any new territory ; and were I a citizen 
in such a territory, I would certainly exert any moral influence I 
could properly command, to exclude it ; and, as a citizen, I 
should cast my vote in the same way. 

Having thus stated my views on this point, that I may not be 
misapprehended, I proceed to state a great principle, of which 
Christians should never lose sight, viz : Divine grace and Divine 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 53 

providence are the two great agencies by which the Divine pur- 
poses, in relation to mankind, are fulfilled. These are the wheel 
within a wheel, that Ezekiel saw. Divine grace operates through 
God's revealed truth, ordinarily taught through the instrumen- 
tality of His church, enlightening the minds, quickening the 
consciences, and renewing the hearts of men, and thus turning 
them to righteousness. By its influence the views and principles 
of individuals are changed, communities are moulded, and ulti- 
mately, the legislation of States is improved. The church is the 
salt of the earth, the light of the world. 

Divine providence is sovereign, using human instrumentality 
or not, as God pleases. Its movements are often too deep and 
too high for human comprehension. " Thy judgments," saith the 
Psalmist, " are a great deep." Even the wisest men are often 
troubled in the attempt to comprehend the ways of God. Con- 
templating the dispersion of the Jews, God's ancient people, the 
Apostle Paul exclaims — " O the depth of the riches both of the 
wisdbm and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are His 
judgments, and his ways past finding out." 

In the accomplishment of His purposes, God has assigned to 
His church a most important instrumentality. It is hers to "go 
teach all nations" — to impress Divine truth on the minds of men, 
and pray for the efficacious agency of the Holy Spirit. In doing 
this she has accomplished the whole work which her Saviour has 
committed to her hands. Then let her wait for and watch the 
openings and leadings of Divine Providence, in relation to those 
things in which that Providence is especially concerned. It was 
a hard bondage which the Jews endured in Egypt ; but there 
was no earthly power that could have delivered them, till the end 
of the four hundred and thirty years, appointed by God. He 
had great purposes to answer by having them detained in cap- 
tivity in Babylon just seventy years; and no earthly power could 
have hastened their return to their own land. And it is an 
instructive fact, that the false prophets were continually exciting 
them to insubordination by promises of speedy deliverance; 
whilst Jeremiah was greatly reproached for bidding them be 
quiet, peaceful and prayerful, till the time appointed of God. 
Many of our modern prophets imitate those who troubled 
Jeremiah and the Jews ; and we see the fruits of their folly. 

Now, although we have no revelation of the purposes of God 
to be accomplished by permitting the existence of African 



5'4 LECTURES OW SLAVEEY. 

slavery in our country, or of the period when it is to end ; yet no 
one who believes in the doctrine of Divine providence, can 
doubt — that God has great purposes to be accomplished by means 
of it. We cannot suppose, that whilst he guides the flight, and 
protects the life of a sparrow, till it has accomplished the end of 
its being, he has left to mere accident or to the passions of men, the 
introduction and continuance of slavery in our country. And if 
he has purposes to accomplish in connection with it ; then none 
can remove it more rapidly, than will be the ripening of those 
purposes. Already do we see some light on this dark subject. 
Great as was the wickedness of those who, for filty lucre, tore 
the Africans from their native country, and sold them into 
slavery ; many and terrible as have been the evils involved in its 
existence ; it is still true, to the praise of Divine grace, that 
hundreds of thousands of them have become the disciples ol 
Christ, and are now rejoicing in heaven; and hundreds of thous- 
ands more are on their way to join them. It is true, likewise, to 
the praise of Divine goodness, that many of them have been 
enabled by Christian and philanthropic men to return to Africa, 
bearing with them Christianity and a Christian civilization — 
diffusing light and blessing over that dark continent. What 
other and further purposes God has to accomplish, in connection 
with slavery, we cannot know ; but, whilst we deplore existing 
evils, and do what we can scripturally to remove them, let us not 
forget, that God is glorified in bringing good out of evil — 
great good out of great evil — making " the wrath of man to 
praise him, and restraining the remainder thereof." The people 
of God may not become impatient, because the results from 
their legitimate labors are not such as they desired or expected, 
and attempt to take the Providence of God out of His hands by 
seizing the sword, and removing wrongs or evils by violence. 

Just here we see one of the great errors of Abolitionists. 
Judging from any of those writings that I have seen, one would 
never imagine — that they acknowledge Divine providence in this 
thing. It seems never to have occurred to them — that God may 
have great purposes yet to be accomplished by means of it ; and 
that they cannot defeat those purposes. Let us not forget the 
wheel within a wheel. 

Before proceeding with the discussion, I propose to state 
several points in relation to which, I presume, Ave are nearly or 
quite unanimous. Much is gained, in controversial discussions, 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 55 

by ascertaining bow far tbe pai'ties agree, and where tbey differ. 

1. We agree, tbat slavery will terminate. It was not in the 
beginning ; and it will not be at tbe end. It originated in sin, 
degradation and violence ; and tbe grace and tbe providence of 
God will ultimately remove tbe effects of sin. It will not exist 
in the Millenial day ; and unless tbat day shall speedily dawn, 
we hope for its disappearance sooner. 

2. We agree, that it must have either a peaceful or a bloody 
end. If bloody, then must the great mass of the slaves perish 
in the conflict. This is inevitable. 

3. If it is to have a peaceful end, it must end with the consent 
and by tbe action of those wbo have it to deal with. On this 
point there can be no dispute. 

4. If it is to end with their consent and by their action; they 
must be influenced either by their worldly interests, or by moral 
principle, or by both. Slave labor may become unprofitable. 
Or moral principle may become strong enough and prevalent 
enough to overcome mere selfish considerations. Or both interest 
and moral principle may combine to produce the result. 

5. Unless providential events and moral influences shall, to 
a very extraordinary extent, change tbe ordinary course of 
tilings, emancipation must be gradual, and in connection with 
colonization. The feeling which prevails in both the slaveholding 
and tbe free States, forbids the reasonable expectation, tbat the 
nearly four millions of slaves will be suddenly emancipated on 
the soil. In the West India Islands, emancipation may be said 
to have been immediate ; but the British parliament had tbe 
constitutional power to abolish slavery; and the government paid 
the owners for their slaves. In our country, there is no constitu- 
tional power outside of the States where it exists, that can intei" 
fere with it. If the emancipation shall occur, it must be under 
the gradual change of public sentiment in tbe slave States ; and 
time will be required to effect such a change. And beyond a 
doubt, this must take place in connection with colonization — tbe 
removal of the blacks to some other place. 

7. Christians can desire and seek only a peaceful termination 
of it. " Tbe Prince of Peace" has given them " the sword of 
the Spirit," and has bidden them fight with it. He has no more 
authorized us to march into the slave States to liberate the slaves, 
than he authorized Peter the hermit and the Pope of Rome to 



56 LECTUKES ON SLAVERY. 

preach up the Crusades, in order to recover the Holy Land from 
the possession of infidels. War, pestilence and famine are God's 
judgments; neither of them has been intrusted to his Church 
for the purpose of effecting reforms. 

Until very recently, I should have expected a unanimous 
agreement to the statement in regard to the peaceful termination 
of slavery; but I have recently seen doctrines and principles 
advocated by ministers of the Gospel, which seem to me to equal 
the worst morality of the Koran. I am happy to say — the number 
of those who have advanced such sentiments, is small. 

8. If we cannot see how and when slavery is to end, it is 
clearly the duty of Christians to bring to bear upon it such moral 
influences, as will most effectually mitigate the evils of it, and 
prepare for its removal, as soon as Divine providence shall 
open the way. 

9. The Gospel is the divinely appointed means for effecting all 
moral reforms, for mitigating existing evils, and for preparing the 
way for, and effecting salutary changes in society. 

10. We are thus brought to the statement of a great principle, 
which, if regarded, will aid us in reaching a safe conclusion 
respecting the true method of treating slavery, viz : In cases i?i 
which ice have to deal with particular sins or evils, with which 
the Apostles of Christ had to deal, their teaching and example 
must guide us ; since they were guided by the Holy Spirit. We 
may not take the general principles of the Scriptures, and make 
an application of them to any sin or evil, contrary to the 
application of those principles, made by the Apostles to sins 
or evils of the same character. Suppose we had a book, written 
under the Divine guidance, in which the general principles of 
medical science were stated and explained, and in which also the 
treatment of a number of particular diseases by inspired physi- 
cians, was detailed. What would be thought of a physician, who 
would attempt to apply the general principles stated, to the 
treatment of a particular disease, without inquiring how the same 
disease was treated by inspired physicians? 

Were the Apostles called to deal with slavery ? We agree, that 
they were. Was the slavery with which they had to deal, iden- 
tical, in its character, with that with which we have to deal? If 
it was, how did they treat it? Having settled these questions, 
we have inspired directions, how we should treat it. Abolitionists 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 57 

affirm — that the slavery with which the Apostles had to deal, 
was identical with American slavery. "See," says Rev. J. 
Blanchard, "how perfectly the American and Roman slave 
systems coincide." " Such was Roman Slavery," says Dr. 
Thompson, "and this is the Slavery which, in its essential feature 
of chattelism, and with many of its horrid incidents, has heen 
transmitted to onr times, and exists upon our soil." "And this," 
says another writer, "is Slavery everywhere." 

Since, then, it is not only admitted, hut asserted, that the 
slavery with which the Apostles had to deal, is identical with 
that with which we are concerned ; it is a question of peculiar 
importance — Mow did they treat it? Beyond a doubt, their 
desire was not only to reform sinners, but to elevate and bless 
the degraded and oppressed. In their methods of effecting these 
objects, they were guided by the Holy Spirit; and their teaching 
and example are placed on record for the guidance of the minis- 
ters and the Church of Christ in all ages. What were their 
methods? 

In dealing with this evil, the Apostles were, in two respects, 
situated as we are, viz: 1st. They found slavery already in 
existence ; and so did we. 2d. They could neither abolish 
slavery, or amend the laws regulating it, except as they could 
reach the governing mind with right moral intluences ; and 
neither can we. The Roman government was not controlled by 
God's law; neither are our Legislatures. We call ourselves a 
Christian people ; but who goes to one of our Legislatures, or to 
the majority of the people, to find a supreme regard for the 
Scriptures ? The Apostles might have modified the laws by 
reaching one mind; we are obliged to reach the multitude, and tO' 
mould public sentiment, against strong prejudices and large 
pecuniary interests. 

I propose now to test the question, whether the mode of 
dealing with slavery, adopted by the Presbyterian Church and 
by others agreeing with us, is the true one, for most effectively 
mitigating its evils, and most safely and speedily abolishing it ; 
or whether the mode adopted by the Abolitionists is the true one. 
Let us test it in two ways, viz : 

1. By enquiring into the Apostolic mode of treating it. 

2. By comparing the results of the different modes. 

I. The Apostolic mode of treating slavery, embraced two 
particulars, viz : 



58 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

1. In the first place, their plan was to preach the Gospel — the 
whole Gospel — to masters and slaves. Examine all their dis- 
courses and parts of discourses recorded in the Acts of the 
Apostles ; and yon will find ample proof of this statement. 
Paul tells us distinctly hoio he preached, and why he preached 
thus. " We preach Christ crucified." Why ? Because such 
preaching is " the power of God and the wisdom of God " — 
Divine wisdom and Divine power combined to turn men from all 
sin. This is what we need. So clear was the Apostle, that this 
was the true way, that he determined not to know any thing else 
among the people. 1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 : 2. 

So far as the masters were concerned, the Apostles secured 
three results, viz : 1st. They saved their souls, to the glory of 
the Redeemer. 2d. They established the authority of God in 
their hearts, and awakened in them the earnest desire to know 
and to do their whole duty — their duty to their servants, as well 
as to others. This was a great gain. Every true convert be- 
came a disciple; and his first question was : "Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do?" Then it was comparatively easy to teach 
them their duty. They would hear and heed. 3d. They secured 
the influence of their example over others — thus forming a purer 
public sentiment — " That ye may be blameless and harmless, the 
sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and 
perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, 
holding forth the word of life." This was the leaven, destined 
to leaven the whole lump — to remove sin and its evils. 

Thus war is to terminate, and slavery with it — not by peace 
societies, but by the diffusion of the doctrines and truths of the 
Gospel. Isaiah, 2 : 3, 4. Swords will be converted to plough- 
shares, and spears to pruning-hooks, just as soon as the Gospel 
shall rule among the nations ; and the same spirit which puts 
an end to war, will forever abolish slavery — one of the fruits of 
war. 

So far as the slaves were concerned, the Apostles accomplished 
several objects, viz : 

They secured to them the highest freedom — their emancipa- 
tion from the thraldom of sin, and the slavery of the devil. So 
far is this freedom superior to the other, that Paul said to con- 
verted slaves: " Care not for it : for he that is called in the Lord, 
being a servant, is the Lord's freeman." And now let me 
propound two or three questions to our Abolitionist friends : — 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 59 

Which is more important to the slaves, emancipation from the 
slavery of sin and the devil, or emancipation from the control of 
earthly masters? If we can secure but One of these blessings 
for them, which is it most important to secure ? In eternity 
for whose influence will the converted slaves feel most thankful to 
God — that of the men who clamored for their temporal freedom, 
leglecting their eternal interests, or that of those who went 
amongst them and labored for their spiritual deliverance V There 
san be but one answer. 

Again : For which of these things did our Saviour die, and 
which has he specially commanded us to seek ? Great as is 
the blessing of freedom, we are not taught that our Lord died 
"o secure it to men, but to " save his people from their sins." 
And the commission he placed in the hands of his ministers and 
people, is to preach his Gospel "to every creature.'' If freedom 
to all results from the preaching of the Gospel, as it will, it is 
well ; but we may not turn aside from our great work ami from 
the great object to secure one infinitely inferior. 

I cannot help contrasting the course pursued by our Abolition 
friends, with that of the Moravian Christians, whose praise is in 
ill the churches. They saw the slaves in the West India 
Islands, in ignorance and sin; and such was their desire for 
.heir conversion to God, that some of them offered to sell them- 
selves into slavery, in order to preach the glorious Gospel to 
;hem. This has been regarded a most wonderful manifestation 
if Christian affection. But now you hear Christian men all over 
die land clamoring about their emancipation, but manifesting 
ittle concern for their souls. And what is certainly remarkable, 
,hey are preaching vociferously, from Sabbath to Sabbath, on 
his subject, to those who are of the same opinion with them- 
lelves, but who can do nothing to effect the desired object ! 

2. If the Apostles did not secure freedom to the slaves, they 
lid greatly mitigate the evils of their servitude, and secure for 
hem that which made them happy in spite of slavery. They 
nitigated the evils of slavery; for every master brought under 
die influence of the Gospel, became a better master. No matter 
whether the slave code of Rome was improved or not, he 
governed bis family and his servants according to the word of 
God ; so that wherever the Gospel was preached, masters became 
liunane and regardful of the interests of their servants, looking 
upon them as their fellow men, whose happiness they were bound 



00 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

to promote. Thus by the influence of the Gospel pressing the 
truth upon hearts and consciences of masters, the Apostles lifted 
the pressure from off the slaves ; and their condition became 
comparatively happy. 

Moreover, the Apostles were inst umental in securing that 
which made them happy in spite of slavery. It is a blessed 
truth, that the grace of God can make all who are its subjects 
happy, in spite of outward circumstances. The Kingdom of 
God is in its nature "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost." Paul and Silas, scourged and cast into prison, 
with their feet made fast in the stocks, at the hour of midnight, 
prayed and sang praises to God. So may all the disciples of 
Christ, bond and free, sing — ■ 

"And prisons would palaces prove, 

If Jesus would dwell with me there." 

Abolitionists may say — slaveholders will not let us go and preach 
among them. How do you account for it, that, under a system 
of unmitigated slavery, the Apostles of Christ could preach to 
masters and slaves, declaring "the whole counsel of God," whilst 
our Abolition friends cannot do the same thing in our country ? 
The Apostles frequently encountered mobs, but you read of not 
a single mob excited by their preaching against slavery V How 
shall we account for the singular fact, that the Apostles could so 
preach against slavery in the Roman Empire, as to mitigate all 
its evils, and melt it away, whilst Abolitionists everywhere stir 
up the worst passions, and defeat their own aims ? Their 
preaching must differ very widely from that of the Apostles on 
the same subject. 

II. The second particular in the Apostolic mode of dealing 
with slavery, was, their receiving into the churches both masters 
and slaves, so far as they gave evidence of conversion, and 
prescribing the relative duties of each. Thus they brought 
masters and slaves under the influence of the Gospel, and under 
the supervision of the church, and together they were accus- 
tomed to partake of their Saviour's body and blood. The 
instructions of the Apostles to both masters and slaves, are 
worthy of special attention ; and they stand in strong contrast 
with those of many modern ministers. Fidelity on the part of 
servants was enjoined as their religious duty — as service rendered 
to their Saviour. " Servants," said Paul, " be obedient to them 



LECTURES OK SLAVERY. 61 

that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trem- 
bling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ, not with eye 
service, as man pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the 
will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to 
the Lord, and not to men " — Eph. 6 : 5, 7. And they were 
commanded to count their masters worthy of all honor, " that 
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed" — 1 Tim. 
6:1,2. If Christian servants should be unfaithful or disobedient 
to their masters, the name of God would bo dishonored, as it is now 
through the influence of ministers who seem to regard themselves 
as wiser than the Apostles. 

Masters, too, were required to discharge their duties to their 
servants, as in the sight of God, who would hold them account- 
able. " Masters, do the same tilings unto them, forbearing 
threatening, knowing that your Master also is in Heaven ; neither 
is there respect of persons with him. 11 " Masters give unto your 
servants that which is just and equal: knowing that ye have a 
Master in Heaven." Thus, instead of the civil code of Rome 
the Gospel of Christ was to control the conduct of both master 
and servant — making both faithful in the discharge of their 
relative duties. " He taught them," says Rev. A. Barnes, " their 
duty towards those who were under them, and laid down princi- 
ples, which, if followed, would lead ultimately to universal 
freedom. * * * * If the master and his slave were both 
Christians, even if the relation continued, it would be a relation 
of mutual confidence. The master would become the protector, 
the teacher, the guide, the friend ; the servant would become the 
faithful helper — rendering service to one whom he loved, and to 
whom he felt himself bound by the obligations of gratitude and 
affection. 11 

By this mode of treating slavery, the Apostles accomplished 
two objects, viz. : they mitigated and almost annihilated the evils 
of slavery ; and they secured its ultimate abolition. " By ignoring 
the Roman law of slavery, and placing both master and servant 
under the higher law of Christian love and equality — the Apostles 
decreed the virtual abolition of slavery, and did in time subdue 
it, wherever Christianity gained the ascendancy in society or in 
the State. 11 — Dr. Thompson. 

This teaching of the Apostles, as- most Abolitionists admit and 
assert, was, in its character and tendencies, decidedly anti- 



62 LECTURES OK SLAVERY. 

slavery. Now, it is a fact, which cannot be disputed, that the 
teaching and the course of the Presbyterian Church are pre- 
cisely the same. Why, then, is she denounced as jwo-sZauery, 
whilst they are declared to have been anti-slavery ? How can it 
be, that the same teaching and the same course which abolished 
slavery then, perpetuates it now? Who will undertake to answer 
these questions ? And since Abolitionists insist, that the Apostles, 
by their instruction and methods of proceedmg,virtually abolished 
slavery, and finally secured its entire removal, why have they not 
been content to follow their example? Are they wiser or more 
faithful ? 

The truth, I fear, is — that many professing Christians, and 
even ministers, have so much confidence in their own wisdom, 
that the Scriptures are of little authority with them. Very 
recently, a Congregational Association in Connecticut licensed 
some four young men to preach the Gospel,- not one of whom 
professed to believe the whole Bible inspired. The disposition 
to trample under foot the Word of God, seems rapidly increasing, 
even in the church ! We must be excused for still sitting at the 
feet of the Great Teacher. 

2. I now propose to test the merits of the two modes of treat- 
ing slavery, by their respective fruits. This is a Scriptural and 
safe test — " By their fruits ye shall know them." The true 
character of professed ministers of Christ and the truth of their 
doctrines are infallibly indicated by their effects. I am willing to 
have our views and our method of dealing with slavery tested in 
this way. Facts will show who are pro-slavery, and who anti- 
slavery. 

1. It is a fact, that the method of treating slavery, which we 
have adopted, abolished it in the Roman Empire. Its evils were 
gradually mitigated, until it entirely disappeared. It is a fact, 
worthy to be remembered, that in the primitive church, and in 
the church through succeeding ages, the mere holding of slaves 
•was never, to any extent, made a bar to Christian fellowship. 
No one, so far as I know, pretends to prove that it was. Never- 
theless, it may be well to adduce some testimony. 

When the Abolitionists were pressing their doctrines upon the 
Free Church of Scotland, insisting on excluding from Christian 
fellowship all slaveholders, Dr. Chalmers said — " We hope that 
our Free Church will never deviate to the right or the left 
from the path of undoubted principle. But we hope, on the 



LECTURES ON SLAVEKT. 63 

other hand, that she will not be frightened from her propriety, or 
forced by clamor of any sort to outrun her own convictions, so 
as to adopt, at the bidding of other parties, a new and factitious 
principle of administration, for which she can see no authority in 
Scripture, and of which she can gather no traces in the history 
or practice of the churches in Apostolic times." Not only did 
not this doctrine prevail in the Apostolic churches; but Dr. 
Chalmers could find no trace of it. The testimony of the very 
learned church historian, Neander, is in point. He says : 
" Christianity brought about that change in the consciousness of 
humanity, from which a dissolution of this whole relation, though 
it could not be immediately effected, yet, by virtue of the conse- 
quences resulting in that change, must eventually take place. 
This effect Christianity produced, first, by the facts of which it 
was a witness ; and next by the ideas which by occasion of these 
facts it set in circulation. Servants and masters, if they had 
become believers, were brought together under the same bond 
of heavenly union, destined for immortality; they became 
brethren in Christ, in whom is neither bond nor free. * * * 
Masters looked upon their servants no longer as slaves, but as 
their beloved brethren ; they prayed and sang in company : they 
could sit at each other's side at the feast of brotherly love, and 
receive together the body of the Lord. Thus, by the spirit and 
by the effects of Christianity, ideas and feelings could not fail of 
being diffused, which were directly opposed to this relation, so 
consonant to the habits of thinking that had hitherto prevailed. 
****** yet Christianity never began with outward 
revolutions and changes, which in all cases where they have not 
been prepared within, and are not based upon conviction, fail of 
their salutary ends. It gave servants first, the true inward freedom, 
without which the outward and earthly freedom is a mere show. 

Dr. Charles Hase, Professor of Theology, of Jena, says : 
" The church has always endeavored to mitigate the evils of 
slavery" — he does not assert that it made it a term of com- 
munion, — " and as soon as she possessed of the power, to restrain 
them by legal enactments. But it was not until sometime in 
the middle ages that the last remnants of European slavery were 
abolished by law." 

The testimony of both these learned historians establishes the 
truth, that slavery was abolished in the Roman empire, not by 



<64 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

excluding all slaveholders from the Church of Christ, nor by 
denouncing them as heinous sinners, but by the gradual diffusion 
of the doctrines and principles of the Gospel. The Gospel was 
preached to masters and slaves; and both entered the church 
together ; and as the warmth of the sun gradually melts away 
the snow, and ice, and frosts of winter, so did Christianity melt 
away slavery. Time was required to effect the result; but it 
was attained. Beyond a question, it is true that the method of 
treating slavery, which we have adopted, did first mitigate, and 
remove its evils, and finally abolish it in the Roman empire. 

2. Our method of dealing with slavery abolished it in every 
one of the States of this Union, in which it has been abolished. 
It has not been a great while, since slavery existed extensively in 
New England, and also in New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl- 
vania. How was it abolished in those States ? Not by 
denouncing slaveholders as criminals, and excluding them from 
the churches, but by the gradual and silent operation of the 
principles of the Gospel. 

I have before stated, and I now repeat, that in none of the 
leading churches or denominations of these States was slave- 
holding ever made, to any extent, a matter of ecclesiastical 
discipline. It is impossible to find a trace of anything of the 
sort, except in a very few of the churches. How, then, came it 
to be abolished in New England, New York, Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey? 

The venerable Dr. Spring, himself the son of a Congregational 
minister, now some seventy-live years of age, and who ought to 
be familiar w T ith this subject, tells us how it was abolished. He 
says: "Where the Bible has begun to exert its influence, it 
gradually remedies the evil and wears it away. It did it in 
Massachusetts. * * * It did it in Connecticut, and statutes 
were passed in 1783 and 1797, which have, in their gentle and 
gradual operation, totally extinguished slavery in that State. It 
did it in New Jersey. It did it Pennsylvania." In New York, 
where the slave laws were very severe, he remarks: "In process 
of time the penal code against slaves was meliorated ; facilities 
were multiplied for the manumission of slaves, and the importa- 
tion of slaves was at length prohibited. Laws were enacted 
also, to teach the slaves to read, and a system commenced for 
the gradual abolition of slavery. * * * Is it not true that 
the Bible has silently and gradually, so meliorated the relation 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 65 

between the master and the slave, that in the progress of its 
principles and spirit, it must ultimately, either abolish the 
relation, or leave it on a basis of the purest benevolence?" 

No doubt, the comparatively small number of slaves in these 
States, and the greater value of the labor of white men, had 
their influence in removing slavery ; and no doubt, many sold 
their slaves to the South, ^instead of emancipating them. But 
so far as emancipation was the result of religious influence and 
moral principle, that influence was diffused by the preaching of 
the Gospel to masters and slaves. We find no exciting debates 
in ecclesiastical bodies in relation to the excommunication of 
slaveholders as such, and no violent denunciations of them in 
the publications of that period. The work progressed silently 
and gradually, till public sentiment moulded the legislation of 
the several States, and led to plans of gradual emancipation. 

3. Our method of treating slavery emancipated large numbers 
in the slaveholding States, before recent agitation led to 
the enactment of laws prohibiting emancipation without removal. 
Rev. Dr. Baird, whose accuracy in statistical statements will 
not be questioned, stated, in his account of the state and pros- 
pects of religion in America, made to the Evangelical Alliance 
in Paris, that in 1850, there were in Virginia 54,332 free colored 
people; in Maryland, 74,723; in all the slave States, 290,424; 
and he remarks: "These people, or their ancestors obtained 
their freedom by the influence of the Gospel on the hearts of 
their former masters.' 1 Here are nearly half a million in tin 
slaveholding States, who obtained their freedom — how? Not 
by the teaching of Abolitionists, but by our mode of treating 
slavery. The Gospel was faithfully preached to masters and 
slaves, and their relative duties pressed upon them. 

If you will take the trouble to look over the Minutes of the 
old Synod of Virginia, you will find the members of their 
churches repeatedly exhorted to educate their slaves, and thus 
prepare them for emancipation. The same is true of the Synod 
of Kentucky. In the free States, we learn from Dr. Baird, there 
were 204,48 1 free colored people, a large portion of whom were 
emancipated in the same way. Let the candid hearer, in view of 
such facts, judge whether the doctrines we preach and the course 
we advocate, do or do not promote emancipation. 

4. The mode of treating slavery, which we advocate, was in 
successful operation — multiplying the number of emancipated 



66 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

slaves, when modern Abolitionism arose to defeat it. I think it 
proper to call special attention to the fact, that when it arose, it 
did not find the churches and the country asleep on this subject. 
The condition of the slaves, and the best and most expeditious 
method of securing to them freedom and prosperity, had lono- 
engaged, and were then enlisting the earnest inquiries of Chris- 
tians and philanthropists, both in the North and in the South. 
Soon after our country secured its independence, general attention 
was turned to the subject. Dr. Alexander says, " The condition 
of the slaves occupied the attention of many serious, sagacious 
men in Virginia, about the close of the last century. It was 
often the subject of free conversation among enlightened men, 
and their opinions generally were favorable to the emancipation 
of the slaves, both on principles of justice and sound policy." 
Such continued to be the prevailing feeling up to 1832, when the 
subject was earnestly discussed by political men. 

In the Christian Observer, published in Boston, in 1816, I 
find a letter from a gentleman in Maryland, containing the 
following interesting statements : 

" Now emancipation (in Maryland) seems to engage the atten- 
tion of all ranks. Societies are forming in most of the slave 
States, in some instances almost exclusively by slaveholders, for 
the express purpose of promoting that interesting measure. 
Formerly, the right to hold slaves was scarcely ever questioned ; 
noic, it is admitted on all sides, that they are justly entitled to 
their liberty. Under this impression, many are disposed to 
emancipate them, but are not willing to turn them loose without 
education upon the community. To a petition circulated by the 
Abolition Society of Tennessee to the Legislature of that State, 
for some legislative provision in the case, there were upwards of 
1500 signatures ; and as an evidence of their eaimest desire for 
the consummation of their request, many of the slaveholders 
w r ere so particular as to write opposite their names — " Slave- 
holder." — In this State (Maryland) emancipation seems to be the 
order of the day. Many families of the first rank have recently 
manumitted their slaves. Few die now without making provision 
for their enlargement; and I trust that the time is near at hand, 
when the Legislature will pass an act to register and secure the 
freedom of such as may be born hereafter." 

In Kentucky, not only the Church, but leading politicians were 



LECTURES OX L AVERT. 67 

exerting their influence in favor of a plan of gradual emancipa- 
tion. With a view to this, a law was passed, forbidding anyone 
to import slaves into the State, unless he would state under oath 
that they were for his own use, not for sale. In 1830, there was 
an Abolitionist Society in Kentucky — not of the modern type, 
but a society of emancipationists, as were those in Tennessee. 

In those days, the subject of slavery was freely discussed. I 
sat in the Synod of Kentucky, and heard the whole subject 
earnestly discussed, and a plan of emancipation earnestly recom- 
mended. In all the shareholding* States, under the influence of 
the Gospel, there was a growing sentiment in favor of eman- 
cipation. 

Now, there might have been some excuse for the course of 
modern Abolitionists, if they had found the country and the 
churches either advocating slavery, or indifferent to its evils, 
and to the rights of slaves. But the state of things was widely 
different. By the diffusion of Christian principles, perhaps 
mainly, slavery had been banished from a number of the States; 
and under the operation of the same principles* the work of 
emancipation was moving forward with increasing rapidity. 
When Lafayette visited this country, he expressed the confident 
opinion, that within fifty years, Maryland, Virginia and Ken- 
tucky would be added to the list of free States ; and his opinion 
was well grounded. But in an evil hour, Abolitionism was born. 
Its first note was one of discord, and its first effect to stop the 
progress of the great work. 

5. Our method of dealing with slavery, originated, and has 
sustained the Colonization Society, of which Henry Clay said: 
" We may boldly challenge the annals of human nature for the 
record of any plan for the amelioration of the condition or 
advancement of the happiness of our race, which promised more 
unmixed good, or more comprehensive beneficence, than that of 
African Colonization, if carried into full execution." I subscribe 
most heartily to the sentiment. 

This noble society was organized at Washington City in 1817; 
and many of the most prominent men in the nation were its 
patrons. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
was prompt to throw the weight of its influence in favor of the 
enterprise. That body, in 1818, said : "We recommend to all 
our people to patronize and encourage the Society lately formed 
for colonizing in Africa, the land of their ancestors, the free 



68 LECTURES OST SLAVERY. 

people of color in our country. We hope that much good may 
result from the plans and efforts of this Society. And while we 
exceedingly rejoice to have witnessed its organization among the 
holders of slaves, as giving an unequivocal pledge of their 
desire to deliver themselves and their country from this calamity 
of slavery, Ave hope that those portions of the American Union 
whose inhabitants are, by a gracious Providence, more favorably 
circumstanced, will cordially, and liberally, and earnestly 
co-operate with their brethren in bringing about the great end 
contemplated." Similar resolutions were adopted by man)' 
succeeding Assemblies. 

Whilst the immediate design of the Society was to colonize, 
with their own consent, in Africa, the free people of color, or 
those who might be emancipated ; it was also designed to break 
up the infamous slave-trade, and to send the Gospel and a 
Christian colonization to Africa. But its friends had still another 
object in view — one especially mentioned by the Assembly of 
1818, viz: The promotion of the emancipation of the slaves. 
Dr. Alexander says: "It was believed by the founders and 
advocates of this Society, that it would exercise a gradual and 
powerful influence on slavery, simply by furnishing benevolent 
and conscientious persons with an opportune of emancipating 
their slaves, to their own advantage; and without injury to the 
country. There can be no doubt, that the great men whose 
names have been mentioned, patronized the Colonization Society 
especially in the hope, that gradually, but rapidly, it would tend 
to deliver the country from the incubus of slavery, in a way to 
which no one could have any right or reason to object." 

Dr. Alexander further says — " There are thousands of slave- 
holders who would give up their slaves, if they were satisfied that, 
Liberia would be a permanently safe and comfortable abode for 
them. The attention of many people of the South is now directed 
intensely towards this rising colony ; and more, many are now 
educating their younger slaves with some view to their future 
residence in that land of promise." 

His testimony respecting its results, as to emancipation, is 
equally clear and instructive. "The Colonization Society," says 
he, " while it never proposed emancipation as its object, has done 
more incidentally to promote emancipation, than all the Abolition 
societies in the country. Indeed, these have, so far as is known 
to us, redeemed no slaves from bondage, but without intending it, 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 69 

have, by the course which they have pursued, riveted the chains 
which confine the slaves more closely than ever." 

The organization of this Society was hailed with delight by all 
the leading churches in the country, and was earnestly recom- 
mended by them all. The Legislatures of some twelve of the 
States, North and South, also endorsed it ; and the Legislature 
of Maryland, in 1833, made an appropriation of two hundred 
thousand dollars towards the removal to Africa of such people of 
color, as might be willing to emigrate. That Legislature, in 
recommending the Society, said — " As philanthropists and lovers 
of freedom, we deplore the existence of slavery among us, and 
would use our utmost exertions to ameliorate its condition." 
Indeed, there seemed a fair prospect, that Congress would take 
hold of the colonization cause, and push forward its noble plans. 

Such was the state of things, and such the prospects of 
emancipation, when modern Abolitionism was born. Those 
called Abolitionists doubtless differ from each other, not only on 
other subjects connected with morals and religion, but respecting 
the extent to which it is proposed to go in opposition to slavery. 
The following doctrines, however, have been taught, with great 
earnestness, by men of respectable standing amongst them : 

1. That slaveholding is sin in itself — " the sum of all villainies ;" 
and, therefore, all slaveholders are to be denied Christian fellow- 
ship. Some only go so far as to assert, that the fact that a man 
is found holding a slave, is prima facie evidence of sin, and 
juits him upon the proof of his innocence. 

2. That it is not only the right, but the duty of slaves to 
escape from their masters, if they can. Rev. Jas. Duncan, in his 
book republished by the Cincinnati Anti-Slavery Society, in 1810, 
says: "It appears self-evident that they are not only in duty 
bound to embrace the first favorable opportunity to escape from 
their tyrants, but it would be criminal to neglect it, so that no 
jury could decide such a case against the slave, without contract- 
ing great guilt and incurring damnation." 

Gerrit Smith, who, I believe, has always stood well with 
Abolitionists, long before he avowed himself an infidel, gave to 
slaves the following advice: " And when, too, you are escaping 
from the matchless, horrible Bastile, take, all along your route, 
in the free as well as in the slave States, so far as it is absolutely 
essential to your escape, the horse, the boat, the food, the 
clothing which you may require ; and feel no more compunction 



70 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

for the justifiable appropriation, than does the drowning man for 
possessing himself of the plank that floats in his way.' 1 He 
afterwards said — "The address has developed the devilism of the 
clerical toads, and other toads, among us." 

3. The right and the duty to excite slaves to run from their 
masters, and to aid them in their flight. We have all heard of 
"the underground railroad," and it is set off attractively in 
"Uncle Tom's Cabin." 

4. The right of slaves to kill their masters in order to gain 
their freedom. Mr. Duncan's book already quoted, maintains, 
that to aid in suppressing a slave insurrection, would be a 
damning sin. Joshua Leavit, whilst editing the Emancipator, 
said, humane men were thinking of reasoning with slaveholders 
with " cold steel." The Independent advised fugitive slaves to 
kill those who would arrest them. " If you die thus," says the 
editors, " you die nobly, and your blood shall be the redemption 
of your race." The same paper advised them to form a secret 
society with pass words, one of whose objects should be that of 
"spreading information among the slaves of the South as to 
the means and methods of escape." 

Such are the doctrines which have been taught by men promi- 
nent in the ranks of Abolitionists, for quarter of a century. 
Doubtless there are many Abolitionists who would not adopt all 
of them ; but if they have met with any rebuke from that quarter, 
I have not seen it. It is an astounding fact, that ministers of 
Christ are found, in our country, not only justifying, but applaud- 
ing the morality of the Harper's Ferry invasion. The Congrega- 
tional Herald, of this city, proclaimed John Brown a Christian 
martyr; and the Covenanter, of Philadelphia, does substantially 
the same thing. I had remarked, in the Expositor, that, if the 
teaching of Abolitionists is true, the only error of Brown 
consisted in moving without reasonable prospect of success. The 
Covenanter answers — " Amen, we say with all seriousness and 
earnestness. It is an evidence of the degeneracy of our age 
and of our land, that there are not thousands actuated by the 
spirit of John Brown in his quenchless hostility to slavery. But 
the right is progressing, and John Brown's heroic, and not 
fruitless devotion of himself to liberty, will prove like oil on the 
smoking embers of the fire of liberty. * * * Future ages 
will assign him a niche of glory in the records of earth," etc. 

This statement of the principles of Abolitionism is sufficient 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 1l 

to show what must have been, and must ever be their 
effects. But let us inquire for facts. The doctrines have borne 
abundant fruits ; and those fruits are the infallible index to their 
true character. 

1. Abolitionism has been zealously propagating its doctrines, 
and urging its practices, for about thirty years ; and not a single 
slave State has been added to the list of free States ; nor has it 
effected any improvement in the laws of any one State. Rev. 
Dr. Kirk, of Boston — an ardent anti-slavery man, a few years 
ago, said publicly — "For thirty years, hard words, and some 
very ugly ones have been used ; and if any good has been accom- 
plished, it is very slow; for not a single statute in any slave 
State has been altered or repealed." With such results, is it not 
time for the Abolitionists to pause, and inquire whether they have 
not greatly erred in their mode of treating Slavery? 

2. How many slaveholders have they prevailed on to emancipate 
their slaves ? Probably not one. It is said, and it is doubtless 
true, that by secret plans and emissaries some slaves have been 
induced to run from their masters, and have been helped on to 
Canada. So far as I am informed, we have no report of their 
success in this department of labor. It is very certain, however, 
that the number of slaves actually freed by them is very small. 

3. Having accomplished little or nothing towards securing the 
freedom of the slaves, Abolitionists have done the cause of 
emancipation infinite injury, by their violent opposition to the 
cause of African Colonization. So prosperous was this cause in 
1832, that Dr. Alexander says — "At one time, it seemed as if 
the expression of opinion in the Legislatures of the States, in 
the ecclesiastical bodies of all denominations, and in the meetings 
of the people, would have so pressed this subject on the attention 
of Congress, that, in obedience to the voice of the people, the 
national government would have not only patronized the Society, 
but have extended over Liberia, the broad shield of its protection." 

Who was it that blasted these fair prospects? "It was," says 
Dr. Alexander, "during this year (1832) of general prosperity in 
the affairs of the Colonization Society, that a spirit of unrelenting 
opposition to the cause, arose from the friends of immediate 
emancipation, many of whom had been once favorers of Coloni- 
zation. * * * The leader in this hostile attack, was Mr. 
Garrison, who published a large book against African Colonization. 



72 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

Of this work, the editor of a paper in the city of New York, 
says — " The boldness, the magnitude, and the severity of his 
charges against the Society are truly astonishing.' This work 
seemed at once to arouse the feelings of many persons, who with 
zeal embraced Mr. Garrison's views ; among these were found 
ministers of the gospel, and men and women of irreproachable 
character. This Avas the origin of what is now called Abolition- 
ism. * * * Mr. Garrison's zeal was not satisfied by his 
written publications in this country, but as Mr. Cresson was in 
England, and successfully winning favor to the cause there, Mr. 
Garrison determined to follow him, and counteract his influence, 
by presenting his own views." 

The zeal of Abolitionists waxed warmer and warmer against 
the colonization cause. James G. Birney and Gerrit Smith, once 
ardent and efficient friends of the cause, went over to the 
Abolitionists, and became no less zealous in defeating its plans. 
In the free States, and especially in New England, the Society 
was almost abandoned ; and it narrowly escaped bankruptcy and 
ruin. " The enemies of the Colonization Society were not con- 
tented to confine themselves to argument and declamation, 
against the principles of the society, but they industriously and 
insidiously attempted to bring the colony into disrepute, by 
having recourse to slander and misrepresentation." — Alexander. 

The Republic of Liberia now stands before the world, the 
triumphant vindication of the Presbyterian Church, and of her 
mode of treating slavery, and as a withering rebuke of the 
errors and wrong doings of Abolitionism. For, although the 
Presbyterian Church did not originate the colonization enterprise, 
(it did not fall within the range of her work,) it was the result 
of that mode of treating slavery, which she has adopted ; and 
from the beginning, it had the weight of her influence. 

Though late, some of the Abolitionists have been compelled to 
see, that this enterprize is a glorious one. The last thing we 
saw from the pen of James G. Birney, was his advice to the 
colored people to go to Liberia, in which he expressed his con- 
viction, that the colonization cause was of God. And the 
Congregationalist of Boston, in spite of its Abolitionism, bears 
the following testimony : 

"American Colonization Society. It claims to have established 
a colony in Africa, that has already been acknowledged an Indc- 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 73 

pendent Republic by the principal governments in the world — to 
have settled Christianity on a permanent footing, preparing the 
principal agency for sending it abroad over the whole dark and 
populous continent — to have planted there American civilization, 
giving the people a constitution like our own — laws, schools, arts, 
language and newspapers, besides rearing a college edifice, and 
supporting a public library of great value — and to have furnished 
thousands of free people of color with a home, where they labor 
under none of the disadvantages of an inferior caste ; where 
hope animates them to noble exertions, and they may fairly 
aspire to all offices of trust and honor, even to the Presidency. 
The march of the Republic is onward — men who, but a few 
years ago Avere slaves in Virginia and Kentucky, now own farms 
and large plantations of coffee, sugar, and other valuable pro- 
ductions. Commerce, too, increases, as the immense internal 
resources of the country are brought to light, and colored men, 
in a few years, amass handsome fortunes ; and educational 
systems are becoming perfected — schools and seminaries are 
springing up in every direction — so that the next generation of 
Liberia will possess a sound, classical, religious education ; and 
besides all this the moral atmosphere is healthful — the Sabbath 
is reverenced along the coast and in the interior, and by those 
who come from a distance to Liberia for purposes of trade. 
Thus much is gained." 

Yes — thus much is gained, in spite of the early, long-continued, 
unmitigated opposition of Abolitionists. And ten times as much 
might, have been gained, both for the slaves and for Africa, if 
Abolitionism had never been born. In its advocates, the cause of 
colonization and of emancipation has encountered its chief difficul- 
ties. Abolitionists of the North, and pro-slavery men of the 
South, however they differed in other things, agreed in opposing 
this cause. 

Now, let the fact be remembered — -that Abolitionism arose under 
the lead of a bad man, who has long been a blaspheming infidel, 
and its first, its most zealous work, for many years, was violent 
opposition to the noblest work of the nineteenth century. Yea, 
audits chief weapons were misrepresentation and slander; for 
now it is demonstrated, so as to silence the bitterest enemy, that 
its charges against the colonization society were false. Claiming 
to be the special friends of the slaves and of emancipation, Abo- 



74 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

litionists threw their whole weight against the great emancipation 
society, which commanded the confidence, and enlisted the energies 
of all denominations of Christians, of large numbers of men not 
professors of religion, and of many Legislatures ! The agents 
of this society found no difficulty in exposing the great evils of 
slavery, and of pleading the cause of emancipation ; for they 
offered to remove from the country the emancipated slaves, and 
place them where they would be truly free. One of the most 
powerful emancipation speeches I ever read, was made by Henry 
Clay, at the anniversary of a Colonization Society. By the 
truths thus put forth, public sentiment was rapidly undergoing a 
change in favor of emancipation. But Abolitionists denounced 
the society and all connected with it as pro-slavery, just as they 
now denounce and misrepresent every man who will not adopt 
their opinions. 

Xow, I ask — did ever any good thing have such an origin, as 
Abolitionism had ?— under the lead of a bad man, bitterly op- 
posing the noblest enterprize, and opposing it by misrepresenta- 
tion and slander ? Is it not time for Abolitionists to stop their 
denunciations of those avIio have steadfastly sustained coloniza- 
tion and emancipation, long enough to give some plausible reason 
for the course they have pursued toward this noble cause? If, 
as is certain, the Colonization Society has really secured the 
emancipation of more slaves, than all the Abolitionists in the 
land ; it is a fair question, which most deserves the name of 
pro-slavery — the Presbyterians who sustained the society, or the 
Abolitionists, who did everything in their power to destroy it? 

4. Abolitionism has divided the friends of emancipation, and 
broken the moral power, that was effectually operating for the 
removal of slavery from the country. Does any man believe, 
that Elliot Cresson, the noblediearted philanthropist, was a 
pro-slavery man? Yet Garrison, who claimed to be ardently 
opposed to slavery, expended his time ami energies in destroying 
the influence of Cresson. And so it has been in every part of 
the land, for a quarter of a century. Tens of thousands of men, 
equally anxious for the abolition of slavery, have been arraigned 
against each other, whilst the evil has rapidly gained strength. 

How stands the matter now ? The Congregational Associa- 
tions of New England, twenty-live years ago, wielded a powerful 
and happy influence in favor of emancipation. Xow that influ- 
ence is annihilated. They cannot exert one particle of influence 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 75 

in favor of the slaves. Nay — every attempt to do any thing, 
simply produces greater exasperation. Twenty-five years ago, 
the Methodist Church exerted its unbroken influence in favor of 
emancipation. Xow, divided North and South — the one division 
drifting to pro-slavery, and the oilier to Abolitionism, they exert 
not a particle of influence for emancipation. The Baptist 
denomination has its influence very much crippled in the same 
way ; and the New School body, divided, and the two parts 
running to opposite extremes, is likewise shorn of its moral 
power for benefitting the slaves. 

A similar change has taken place outside of the churches. 
Formerly the people of the North and the South, and the 
Northern and Southern Legislatures were united in the noble 
effort to remove the curse of slavery from the country. Now 
they are divided in feeling, and opposed to each other in meas- 
ures. The cause of these divisions is too well known. Aboli- 
tionism found the cause of emancipation going forward under 
the united influence of all denominations of Christians, and of 
the whole American people, with comparatively few exceptions. 
At the end of thirty years, it has broken and destroyed this 
mighty and happy influence ; and what has it given us in its 
stead? Divisions, heart-burnings, hatred, variance, strife! 
Still, in the face of such facts, it shouts pro-slavery against 
every man who refuses to shut his eyes to all the past, and 
follow it. 

5. Abolitionism has produced a terrible reaction against 
emancipation, and in favor of the perpetuity of slavery, in all 
the slaveholding States. The doctrines published by Abolition- 
ists, and their modes of procedure, have produced the highest 
degree of irritation, which always drives men to extreme posi- 
tions. Dr. Chalmers, judging from the character of these 
principles, declared his conviction, that such would be the result, 
lie said : "There are various modes of procedure and policy, 
on which philanthropists and patriots might enter, and join their 
forces for the abolition of slavery. The most unjustifiable, and 
let me add, the most unwise and least effectual of all these, were 
to prononnce a wholesale anathema by which to unchristianize, 
or p:i<s ;i general sentence of excommunication on slaveholders. 
But I must repeat my conviction, that slavery will not be at all 
shaken — it will be strengthened and stand its ground — if assailed 
through the medium of that most questionable and ambiguous 



7G lectures ox slavery. 

principle which the Abolitionists are now laboring to force npon 
our acceptance, even that slaveholding is in itself, a ground of 
exclusion from the Christian sacraments — insteadof being assailed 
through the medium of such other and obvious principles, as 
come home to the hearts and consciences of all men." 

As a matter of fact, this unhappy reaction is not only cotem- 
porary with the rise of Abolitionism ; but the effects of its 
doctrines became immediately manifest, not only in Kentucky 
and Virginia, where public sentiment was becoming increasingly 
favorable to emancipation, but throughout the South. Dr. 
Alexander, after mentioning the character of the publications 
made, many of which tended strongly to excite the slaves to 
insurrection, says : " Alarm and indignation spread through the 
whole southern country. The effect on the people of the South, 
in regard to slavery, was the very opposite of that aimed at ; 
and sentiments more favorable to the continuance and even 
perpetuity of slavery, began now to be very commonly enter- 
tained ; whereas before, such statements were scarcely ever 
heard." 

On this subject, Daniel Webster bore the following unequivo- 
cal testimony : " I cannot but see what mischief their interference 
with the South has produced. And is it not plain to every man ? 
Let any gentleman who doubts that, recur to the debates in the 
Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what 
freedom a proposition made by Mr. Randolph for the gradual 
abolition of slavery, Avas discussed in that body. Every one 
spoke of slavery as he thought ; very ignominious and disparag- 
ing names and epithets were applied to it. The debates in the 
Plouse of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all pub- 
lished. They were read by every colored man who could read ; 
and if there were any who could not read, those debates were 
rend to them by others. At that time Virginia was not 
unwilling nor afraid to discuss this question and to let that class 
of her population know as much of it as they could learn. They 
(the Abolitionists) attempted to arouse and did arouse a very 
strong feeling; in other words they created great agitation in 
the North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? 
The bonds of the slave were bound more firmly, their rivets 
more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had 
begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for 
the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in 



LECTURES OJf SL AVERT. 77 

its castle. I wish to know whether anybody can now talk in 
Virginia, as Mr. Randolph, Gov. McDowell and others talked 
then openly, and sent their remarks to the press in 1832? We 
all know the fact, and Ave all know the cause; and everything 
that this agitating people have done, has been, not to enlarge, 
but to restrain ; not to set free, but to bind faster the slave 
population of the South." Such is the testimony of Daniel 
Webster. 

The venerable Dr. Spring, after mentioning the painful reaction 
in Kentucky and Virginia, says : "The late Dr. Griffin, one of 
the most devoted friends of the colored race in the land, said 
to me a few months before his death, " I do not see that the 
efforts in favor of immediate emancipation have effected anything, 
hut to rivet the chains of the poor slave.' " 

It is not difficult to see how this reaction was produced. The 
doctrines themselves were calculated to produce it — not only 
designing to exclude all slaveholders from the Church of Christ, 
hut justifying, if not tending to excite slave insurrections. 
Then these doctrines, when first promulged, were taught by 
men in the free States, and were accompanied with the most 
offensive wholesale denunciations. Not only have we no script ura] 
authority for such a mode of procedure, but it has never been 
adopted with reference to any other evil or sin. Try the plan 
upon one of your neighbors, who, as you think, is living in sin. 
Collect several of your acquaintances, have addresses delivered, 
magnifying his criminality; pass offensive resolutions and puhiish 
them in the papers. Would any man in his senses expect to 
reform one of his neighbors in this way? Try the plan with 
the heathen. Let us have public meetings, and earnest and 
denunciatory addresses, setting forth, in strong light, the super- 
stition and corruption of the Chinese. Send them to the emp< ror, 
along with your missionaries. Inform him of your purpose to 
rectify existing evils and improve his legislation. Plow will you 
succeed ? Yet you will make such speeches, and publish such 
resolutions, and send them to the slave States — thus so exciting 
unconverted men, that nothing can be .lone to promote eman- 
cipation. 

Connected with these doctrines, so unwisely promulged, was 
the sending of secret agents into the slave States, for the purpose 
of inducing slaves to leave their masters. To what extent 
Abolitionists have actually engaged in this business, I do not 

LofC. 



78 LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 

pretend to know; but so far as I am informed, none of them 
have condemned it. I myself knew an instance in which a min- 
ister, while attending the meetings of an ecclesiastical body, took 
advantage of the hospitality of a gentleman who entertained him, 
to interfere with his slaves. Who can wonder, that such doctrines 
and practices have destroyed confidence, and rendered the 
people of the South suspicious of those coming from the North ? 
The enactment of severe laws, the occurrence of mob violence, 
and the like, date after the rise of Abolitionism. I cannot justify 
these things. I could not justify a man for striking another for 
an insult offered; but who that knows anything of human nature, 
is surprised at it? Ministers of the Gospel and Christians are 
inexcusable for pursuing a course to excite the evil passions of 
men, when they are bound to try to reform them. They are the 
less excusable, since, in relation to this ve?y subject, they have 
both the instruction, and the example of inspired men. 

6. Abolitionism has, as far as it could, taken the Gospel from 
both masters and slaves — thus not only depriving the slaves of 
the consolations and hopes of religion, but taking away the 
Divinely appointed means of reforming sinners of all classes, and 
of removing all kinds of evil. Our Congregational brethren 
have missionaries in heathen lands ; but they have none in the 
slave States, about which, nevertheless, those of them who are 
Abolitionists, have manifested so deep concern. Their sympa- 
thies for the poor slaves have risen to the highest pitch ; and 
they have in their hands the most effectual of all agencies to 
relieve them ; but they have not used it ! They have stood at a 
distance and abused their masters, instead of carrying to them 
the Gospel of Christ. The Home Missionary Society could 
once sustain missionaries in the slave States ; but Abolitionist 
sympathy for the slave has rendered it impossible now ; and 
hence the formation of the Southern Aid Society, to enable 
those who once sent their benefactions through the American 
Home Missionary Society, to send the Gospel to the slave States. 
The true spirit of Abolitionism was expressed by the Conr/rega- 
ttonalist, of Boston, some four years ago. " The destitutions in 
Missouri," said the editors, " are great and lamentable; the vacant 
churches are numerous, and withal feeble." " It is among the 
last States of the Union in which any man of God can promise 
himself usefulness or comfort." " Slavery is there in its worst 
type and most revolting features." " If there be a single Lot in 



LECTURES OX SLAVERY. 79 

such a Sodom, the voice from Heaven says to him — ' Flee for thy 
life." 

The plain English of this is — " The devil has taken possession 
of Missouri ; let the soldiers of Christ run like cowards [" Apart 
from the fact that every one of these statements is untrue, what 
must we think of the sentiment? If slavery had keen there in 
its most revolting forms — the slaves groaning under terrible 
oppression and cruelty — wc would have supposed that Christians 
deeply sympathizing with them, would have hastened to carry 
the Gospel to masters and slaves, that its evils might be 
mitigated, and slavery abolished as soon as possible. Strange 
Christianity this ! Did not slavery exist in the Roman Empire 
in its most revolting forms ? Abolitionists agree with us that it 
did. Did the voice from Heaven, therefore, bid the Apostles 
flee tor their lives ? Did not that voice bid them go to master 
and slave, and preach to them "the unsearchable riches of 
Christ?" Whence, then, came the voice which the Congrega- 
tionalist heard, bidding good men flee from Missouri, because 
slavery was there? Most assuredly it came not from Heaven. 
Yet, with few exceptions, Abolitionists have obeyed it, as if it 
had been the voice of God, for they have carefully avoided 
sending the Gospel to the slaveholding States. 

7. Abolitionism has arrayed the great political parties against 
each other in a manner which threatens the ruin of the country. 
But for its agitations, there would have been no great zeal for 
extending slavery into new territories, nor any danger of its 
being extended. Politicians, North and South, are (puck to see 
the hobbies on which they can ride into office and power. They 
have watched the increasing excitement and irritation upon the 
subject of slavery; and they have raised questions of the most 
threatening character upon it. It is a sad thing that the church 
and her ministry, whose office it is to subdue evil passions, and 
whose influence should bind the different parts of the country 
together, have been perverted, so as to excite the worst passions? 
and throw the tremendous influence of Christianity in favor of 
civil war with all its horrors. 

The latest development of the doctrines of Abolitionism has 
been witnessed at Harper's Ferry. The chief actor in that scene 
did nothing more than to carry out in practice the doctrines of 
the book published, in 1840, by the Cincinnati Anti-Slavery 
Society, and of the Independent and the Emancipator. And 



80 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

now it is proclaimed by ministers of the Gospel in this city and 
elsewhere, that he is a Christian martyr, whose error was in the 
attempt to excite a slave insurrection, necessarily resulting in the 
most horrid scenes, without reasonable prospect of success. No 
Pope, in the dark ages, ever taught morality more corrupt and 
atrocious. There is nothing worse in Mahomet's Koran. 
According to this doctrine, Christian men may properly wait and 
pray for the day, when they may invade the slave States, and 
with fire and sword effect the emancipation of the slaves. I have 
hoped, that such doctrines are really held by very few ; but when 
I see them taught without rebuke in a Denominational paper — 
the Congregational Herald, of this city, and in the Covenanter, of 
Philadelphia, I do not know how far they may have extended 
their influence. 

And now, what are the results of thirty years of agitation ? 
The progress of emancipation almost wholly stopped ; constitu- 
tions and laws extensively adopted prohibiting emancipation 
without removal ; the discussion of the evils of slavery in the 
slave States rendered impossible ; an intense pro-slavery feeling 
pervading those States ; the moral influence of the churches in 
favor of the slaves annihilated ; the churches of all denomina- 
tions divided and crippled ; the North and the South arrayed in 
bitter hostility toward each other, with the dreadful prospect of 
civil war, and the ruin of this great nation, to the joy of despots 
in Europe, and the grief of all good men. Such are some, and 
only part, of the legitimate fruits of abolitionism; and the end 
is not yet. 

I now close this discussion with a few remarks and suggestions. 

I. The facts in the case show conclusively, which of the two 
modes of treating slavery is the scriptural and true one. " By 
their fruits ye shall know them." The mode which we insist 
upon has emancipated a thousand — I might say, ten thousand — 
slaves, where the Abolitionist mode has emancipated one. Our 
mode lias greatly mitigated the evils of slavery, where it has 
not secured their emancipation ; whilst every slave freed by the 
Abolitionist mode, has rendered the condition of hundreds of 
other slaves more hopeless and more miserable. Our mode has 
promoted emancipation, whilst it has promoted the spread of the 
Gospel, and built up the kingdom of Christ ; whilst the Aboli- 
tionist mode has divided the Churches, and, to a great extent, 
destroyed their efficiency in the great work of evangelizing the 



LE" TURKS ON SLAVERY. SI 

world. The truth is, Abotitionism has abolished every good 
thing it has touched, and left slavery stronger than before. It is, 
in truth, a great pro-slavery influence; and southern pro- 
slavery men know that it is so. It affords them the opportunity 
to excite the people of the South, and urge them to make stronger 
the cords that bind the slaves. 

As a Presbyterian, I am ready to compare notes with my 
Abolitionist friends. They denounce me and my Church as 
advocates of slavery. I am prepared to demonstrate, that we 
have emancipated a thousand slaves to their one, and that we 
have been instrumental in securing the highest freedom to a 
still greater number. The physicians who cure their patients, 
or improve their condition, are the true doctors. Others make 
a great ado, and publish their astonishing discoveries to the 
world ; but the true test is the cures effected. I am prepared to 
stand the test. Dare my Abolitionist friends do the same? 
Abolitionism and steam doctoring belong to the same general 
class of remedies. Both kill a hundred, where they cure one. 

II. Do you ask, what is our duty with regard to slavery? I 
• r — 

1st. Preach the Gospel to masters and slaves. There are 
multitudes of faithful ministers in tin- slave States, who are 
preaching all that the Apostles ever preached on the subject; 
and no minister is authorized to preach anything more than they 
preached. Strangely enough., the day has come, when ministers 
of the Gospel are denounced, and that by Protestants, for not 
going further than the Bible, and preaching what is not in it. 
But it' the Gospel is not faithfully preached in the slave States; 
send good men, who will preach it. But let those who are not 
sed to go and preach the Gospel there, cease agitating, and 
leave the matter in the hands of those who are willing to under- 
take it. And if they will look around them, they Avill find 
enough to do in their own fields. 

'/'.''■ Gospelis the great remedy for the evils of Society. Send 
it to the Slave Stated and let it do its work. 

_. Sustain the Colonization Cause. Abolitionists now begin 

to acknowledge indirectly their great error in so bitterly opposing 

it. When Paul was converted, he was as zealous in building up 

the Church, as he had been in pulling it down. Let Abolitionists 

ate his example. But let them abandon the doctrines and 



82 LECTURES 02T SLA.VERT. 

practices that have done so much mischief, and so little <jood. 
Abolitionism and colonization will never -work together. But 
the colonization cause presents a broad platform on which all 
friends of the slaves can stand, and work together. It has been 
tested; and its glorious fruits have established its character. If 
Abolitionists are sincere in desiring the removal of slavery 
from our country, and for the happiness of slaves, let thera meet 
us on this common ground ; and we will give them the right 
hand of fellowship. 

3. Let us pray. "The Lord reigneth." He can remove 
slavery and every other evil from the country. His grace and 
His Providence only can do it. He works in answer to prayer. 
Let us give up bitter denunciation, and meet, as the children of 
our Heavenly Father, at the throne of grace. May God, in his 
mercy, give us back those halcyon days, when the whole Church 
of Christ, and the whole country, North and South, stood side 
by side in the earnest effort to remove this giant evil from the 
land. May he subdue evil passions, cause his watchmen to see 
eye to eye, bring back his Church to the unerring teachings of 
his Word ; and then the Gospel, in its purity and power, will 
make this great nation the happiest nation on the globe, and a 
blessimr to all other nations. 



i 



m 



% < 




WERT 










- <W* .*^X%* % 









V ..J 






\^\Vk*l 



"V 






,-.-! 






. ■ . 



:: _ ■:' 

■■" ■.:■ : - 

- 

• ■ -.-. ... 

■.'.■■'■■• 
: 

■-^■7~ : - y 7l yy i7u7:' y '"- 
- - - 



?. : ... 







- 
■.■.-.'•■■.■ . : ■ l 

: 

■- 

- 

. : :\: ■ ' -:■_.:■;:" 

■". '.■■-:■. ■■■/ : 




■ ■ :■ . : 

... 

■ ■ . I.,., ■ ■ 
.....■-■, 
-... ; _ ■ - . 

... ■;- 



'.- ■ ';' ■ 



- 



'■"--..■ ■ ■ - : -' '■ 



.■'.■"■■:' 

-..-■..■: - - ■ . ■-.-.:-. 

''77":' '7 : 7. '":■'. -, " > ; '. ■ ''7 '~l '■ '. 7: 

:.: . .■ . " 

- 



7 

. ■ ■ . 

■ 



-: 

: . ^ : 7^^v- 

■ ■■ ... ■•■■ ■. ■ 

. . . • 7 ■ .- 

1! : : i.n'-"i ! I:;i' '::: : -~ ' r '. ■ : - ■ - ~ - ' . 

- . - :. : :i: 

. . ."■ : 

- 




